Question for the PM

A QUESTION for Prime Minister Patrick Manning: Sir, are you not concerned that your belief in and your approach to the participatory democracy to which our nation subscribes is coming under question as a result of your recent decisions? Does it not worry you that at least a section of the population, containing committed and intelligent citizens, may begin to feel a sense of unease about your manner of conducting the country's affairs?

The question stems largely from the controversy which has arisen over the decision to remove the seat of the nation's parliament from its traditional place in the Red House and relocate it in a new building to be constructed on the opposite side of Knox Street. And the basis for it is not any intention to challenge the power and authority of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to make decisions and implement them with respect to the development, physical or otherwise, of the country. One accepts the fact that the Government, elected by the people, must discharge that sacred responsibility. But, at the same time, in doing so, one also expects that the Prime Minister, as leader of the Government and the country, will always be conscious of the need to consult with relevant and responsible parties when deciding on changes that would affect their functions, their established locations and their performance materially.

Such consultation, such a need for strategic participation, is a fundamental ingredient of a modern-day democracy. Mr Prime Minister, the impression that you do not seem to appreciate that essential requirement of our system of government is becoming a source of concern among a widening circle of respectable citizens. To them, also, a willingness to consult is an assuring and comforting attribute, evidence that those who wield power are ever conscious of the source of their authority and of the need to be transparent and unifying in their conduct of the people's affairs. Mr Prime Minister, the fact that you and your government could take a decision, just so, to construct a new parliament building that would dislodge the Port-of-Spain Magistrates' Court from its traditional place without consulting the Chief Justice is troubling. But the snubbing of Mr Sharma becomes even more unfortunate, taking on a deliberate flavour, when it is further decided to shift the newly renovated Magistrates' Court to the old, dilapidated Treasury Building again without any serious consultation with the Chief Justice.

Concerned citizens, of course, may question the wisdom of relocating the Magistrates' Court from its recently refurbished building with its new wing, on which large sums have been expended, to the dilapidated Treasury Building which will require another huge amount of money to remodel for the Courts' occupancy. But that is another point. The question being asked here concerns the practice of our democracy and the understanding of the Prime Minister regarding what it demands of him.

How troubling it is may be seen in the critical reaction of the Law Association and its president, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, who was recently appointed a Judge of the International Criminal Court. Mr Hudson-Phillips writes: "It is inconceivable that any such decision could be made without adequate and meaningful consultation with the Honourable Chief Justice, the Judiciary and, in the case of the Magistrates' Court, the Magistracy, as well as the Law Association." The Council is still hoping that meaningful consultation will take place with all the stakeholders "in order to ensure that their concerns and interests are properly taken into account before the plans, which have been announced, move to the implementation stage." Will the Prime Minister take heed?