On being a republic

Yet, Republic Day has not always been a part of the annual calender.

Between 1999 and 2001, the holiday was removed. At the same time, the Spiritual Shouter Baptist Liberation Day was added. However, by 2002, the Republic Day holiday was reinstated.

What does it mean to be a republic? A republic is a State or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote, and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them, and responsible to them. This, as opposed to a monarchy where the queen is the head of State and the realm owes allegiance to her.

Our Republican Constitution provides for a Cabinet that shall have the general direction and control of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and shall be collectively responsible therefore to Parliament.

The Cabinet consists of the Prime Minister and such number of other ministers (of whom one shall be the Attorney General), appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 76, as the Prime Minister may consider appropriate.

The supreme law also provides for a President who, in the exercise of his functions under the Constitution or any other law, acts in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet where provision is made by the Constitution.

The Constitution provides for the Prime Minister to keep the President fully informed concerning the general conduct of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and to furnish him with such information as he may request on any matter relating to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

The teleological rationale behind all of these provisions is relatively straightforward. If we are truly a republic, then it cannot be that the President can act on his own accord on matters that are properly for the Cabinet. While the President has supreme command of the armed forces, “the exercise of this power shall be regulated by law” (Section 74, Constitution).

Today’s celebration of Republic Day comes at an ironic time in our country’s history. Once more, the current occupant of President’s House has been accused of overstepping his bounds.

The issues raised relate to the proper remit of the President when it comes to his role as commander of the armed forces. Ancillary questions have also been raised about accounting processes, procurement practices and the question of the use of official insignia on merchandise.

Serious questions have already been asked about President Anthony Carmona’s delay in assenting to legislation relating to the Strategic Services Agency; as well as his lobbying of international actors on questions of foreign policy, both at home at abroad.

The President himself has been disinclined to respond to direct questions from the media.

But while many have raised questions, the fact is that none of this would be happening if the 1976 Constitution had left things absolutely clear.

It is because of gaps and inconsistences of logic within our supreme law that there are sometimes no fixed answers in relation to when matters are raised concerning President’s House. It should not be for lawyers to opine on the remits of our most important posts.

A President who stirs controversy is hardly new. Former President ANR Robinson angered many people by delaying the appointment of Opposition senators who had lost at a general election. Today, such a thing would be unfathomable.

Former President George Maxwell- Richards also faced a storm over his appointments to the Integrity Commission. His response was to dress down the nation for impertinence.

If we are serious about being a republic, then what is needed is constitutional reform that will more comprehensively and clearly address the powers of our leaders.