Need for Constitution Commission

THE EDITOR: In our society today “reality” has become a victim of partisan politics and objectivity has gone out the window, leaving hypocrisy to take centre stage. The current stalemate between the Government and the Opposition on the issues of constitutional reform and the proposed Police Bills is the result of a lack of trust between both political parties.

Let us face reality: The police bill is an important requirement and so
too is constitutional reform even though the less politically conscious citizens do not agree. The genesis of the stand-off is that the PNM believes that total constitutional reform is not in the best interest of the party and prefer selective amendments. The UNC, on the other hand, believes that the PNM does not want comprehensive reform and to co-operate with the Government will only be playing in the hands of the PNM for whom it will be business as usual on their stand for piecemeal amendments and putting total reform on the back burner.

The reality of the situation is that the PNM’s fear is the UNC’s call for proportional representation and whatever else it may have in mind, but that is not the issue now. In the circumstance, questions such as why it is only now Mr Panday is calling for constitutional reform is irrelevant. The real issue is whether or not the country’s constitution needs comprehensive reform and the answer can come immediately from all the groups — who no longer seem interested — who were advocating constitutional reform during the 18-18 constitutional crisis.

During our President’s address at the opening of Parliament in 2003, this was the message he was sending when he told the nation: “It could be said with justification, that after 41 years of Independence and 27 years as a Republic, it is time for change. It is time to seek new systems of governance that will be better suited to our circumstances and our time.” There was no doubt in my mind that he was telling us there is need for comprehensive constitutional reform. There is a difference between acknowledging the need for constitutional reform and discussing recommended inputs for reform — a stage we have not reached and cannot be reached without the means, such as a constitution commission, to provide national debate.

In the national interest, that is the responsibility of the Government to show its commitment, and if that is done, there will be no reason for the opposition to continue to withhold its support for the police bill, as they will then see their cooperation as being part of the “process” for constitutional reform. Constitutional reform is a part of our continuous search for good governance of the people and by the people. Comprehensive reform can give us the opportunity to lay a foundation for building a new united generation of Trinbagonians, working towards improving our lives, economically, politically, socially and culturally. However, the bottom line is: only a united, active and objective civil society can get us there.

WYCLIFFE MORRIS
Tacarigua