People final of arbiters reform
Trinidad Guardian
Sunday 15th April, 2007
by
Basdeo Panday
LAST WEEK, I promised readers that unless sidetracked by something inane the PNM was bound to do during the week (to which I may be tempted to respond), I would state some of my views on constitution reform in this column.
I am sorely tempted to comment on the decision to spend $148 million on a new home for a prime minister (who may never occupy it), and the last-minute election dash of $800 million to fix the long-suffering roads.
But I must resist the temptation, keep to my word and stick to the Constitution.
Simply put, a constitution is a system, often codified as a written document that establishes the rules and principles that govern an organisation or political entity.
In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties of a government.
Most national constitutions also guarantee certain fundamental rights and freedoms to the people.
Since I believe the purpose of human existence is human happiness, I am of the view that a constitution must go further: it must contain provisions and provide for institutions that conduce to the happiness, well-being and development of the people in every aspect of their lives.
It is then the function of the government to so organise and use the resources of the State to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
The constitution must be in the nature of living organism, changing to meet the changing demands, needs, hopes and aspirations of a developing people.
Cosmetic changes
For the sake of continuity, forgive me for repeating some of what I said last week. Our constitution is 45 years old, formulated in 1962 when things were different.
The change to a republican constitution in1975 was merely cosmetic, dealing with form while leaving the substance unchanged.
The country and the people have moved a long way since 1962, and the constitution is crying out for change to meet the changing needs, hopes and aspirations of the people and the nation.
The big question is: how do we proceed to effect meaningful reform of the constitution under which we now live. Success or failure will depend on the process by which we move to reform the constitution.
The worst method to adopt is the legal approach of taking the old constitution and handing it to lawyers, telling them to reform the constitution without giving them specific instructions as to what kind of constitution we are trying to achieve.
This is what Prime Minister Patrick Manning did to the hapless Sir Ellis. I am surprised he fell for it.
Constitution reform is not a legal matter to be dealt with by lawyers; it is a political matter to be dealt with by the final arbiters in all political matters—the people—and their lawfully-elected political representatives.
The big question is how do we approach the people, especially the masses of the ordinary people, in this exercise? Certainly not by asking them to produce a draft and submit it to the government, or by asking them to tell you how to amend the Constitution.
Or, worse still, by calling a consultation to discuss a draft prepared by the lawyers. In nine out of ten times the ordinary people would not have read the draft, or, even if they did, they would hardly be in a position to understand the legalese in which such documents are written.
What we do know, however, is that the people are familiar with, and know very well, the problems, frustrations and difficulties they face from day to day in their lives.
Unlike the politicians, they are not consumed with politics, but with their lives and the problems of daily living. If you ask them what their problems are, they will tell you, and the answers to their problems will then form the basis of the reformed constitution.
For example, suppose the people tell you that one of their problems is that once the parliamentary representative is chosen and enters the Parliament or the regional corporations, he/she turns his/her back on his constituents, or even on the party that put him/her in office.
If you persist, they may even give you the answer. The answer may well be to introduce in the Constitution the right of recall.
Should the people indicate that they do not want to vote for any one of the existing political parties, but would still like their voices to be heard in the political decision-making process, then this problem could be resolved by introducing in the Constitution a system of proportional representation that would allow smaller interest groups to be represented in the Parliament.
If discrimination is a problem for the people, then the Constitution should include mechanisms to discourage such action. I can go on and on, but I am sure you have got the idea.
Keep asking the people, and they will give you a clue to their problems and the possible solutions, which must form the basis of any constitutional reform.
Executive president
One of the complaints of the people has been that the executive or political directorate has too much uncontrolled power. What is the answer?
I am in favour of an executive president, but s/he must be truly and democratically-elected by the people on the basis of one man/woman-one-vote.
The president, having been thus democratically-elected, would be entitled to select his Cabinet from the best people in the country, not necessarily from Members of Parliament.
The president and his Cabinet would then prepare an annual budget containing proposals and expenditure for the ensuing year, which s/he must take to the Parliament for approval.
It follows that the president will have no power to do anything unless he gets parliamentary approval and funding, the power for which will rest with the Parliament.
If, for example, his proposals discriminate against certain sections of the population, he will not get the support of their representatives in the Parliament unless he can pacify them by amending his budget proposals.
This would certainly curtail the power of the president and put real power in the hands of the people’s representative. In order to ensure that as many interest groups in the society have a say in this exercise, the Parliament will have to be differently-constituted.
Parliament
I do not believe there is need for a bicameral Parliament in so small a country as Trinidad and Tobago, with a population of a mere 1.3 million people.
I believe we ended up with a Senate in the first place because we were copying as closely as possible the British model of Parliament, which included a House of Lords.
I suspect that there are many in our country who believe they should be in Parliament, not because they represent anything or anybody, but because of their “lordliness.”
I would advocate a unicameral Parliament consisting of a larger House of Representatives of between 90 and 100 members, elected on the basis of proportional representation.
The present crop of independent senators would then have an opportunity to represent somebody, but not before they face the polls.
The purpose of having a Parliament constituted in this way offers many benefits. In a highly plural and diverse society such as ours, the representatives of more and diverse interest groups will be represented in Parliament, and will have the opportunity of having their input in the political decision-making process.
What could be more democratic in a society such as ours?
Mr Manning has argued that proportional representation will exacerbate the racial divisions in the political society. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the contrary is true.
Under the present electoral system of first-past-the-post single member constituencies, the result can be quite undemocratic.
Because of our historical antecedents of political parties being generally supported by the two major racial groups in the society, the political spectrum in this country has demonstrated over and over that it can and will contain only two major political parties, with the smaller ones being unable to get any seats under the present electoral system.
One recalls the fate of the Organisation for National Reconstruction in the 1981 general election, when that party got 90,000 votes but did not win a single seat in the House of Representatives, while the United Labour Front, which got some 85,000 votes, got ten seats.
The system disenfranchised 90,000 of our citizens; what could be more undemocratic than that! Why should people who do not wish to vote for either of the two major political parties not have the right to be represented by another party of their choice?
Proportional representation
On the issue of proportional representation, former Prime Minister, the late Dr Eric Williams, was more candid than his successor, when he said proportional representation was a dagger aimed at the heart of the PNM.
It is a pity that he chose to put the survival of the PNM before that of the nation and its people.
With the timorous rejection of proportional representation by Mr Manning, PNM history is now repeating itself. The truth is that proportional representation would break the racial stranglehold on the politics of T&T, and that is the one thing the PNM does not want to happen, because it knows that its survival depends on the politico-racial cleavages in the society.
A second reason why a larger House of Representatives elected on the basis of proportional representation would be beneficial to the country would be the members’ greater ability to monitor the activities of the government in power.
At the present time, there are 36 members in the House, more than half of whom belong to the government. It is not possible for the rest of the elected representatives, who are in opposition to the government, to monitor the activities of the government with an annual budget of more than $40 billion with the several sparsely-populated House Committees that now exist.
Such an expanded House would be able to establish new House Committees to monitor the activities of the president, particularly his power of appointment of persons to high office, such as the judiciary, the Commissioner of Police, the chairman and members of the Integrity Commission, the members of the Public Service and other commissions, other State enterprises, and so on.
There should be a House Investigating Committee to inquire into any allegations against the government, or any other member, for that matter.
Such a system would go a long way to the establishment of a meritocracy in the Public Service generally.
There are, of course, much more to a reformed constitution. These are just a few thoughts that should provoke some discussion on so important a subject.
©2005-2006 Trinidad Publishing Company Limited