Is Constitutional Reform dead?

Tue, May 22. 2012

Since the botched referendum on the proposed new Constitution for St Vincent and the Grenadines in November 2009, there have been several reminders, locally, regionally and internationally, that the matter of constitutional reform for countries like ours cannot be swept under the carpet. Our country was considered a lodestar in this realm, to the extent that several neighbouring countries looked upon us and our possible success in this regard, for inspiration in advancing their own aspirations in that field.{{more}}

There have in fact been indications that the rejection of the proposed reforms of the Constitution here may be causing ‘cold feet’ in one or two countries which had been treading in our wake. Inadvertently then, the regional leader in constitutional reform ended up stalling in the process. Trinidad and Tobago and St Lucia can testify to this.

The failure of November 2009 can be attributed to political blunders on the part of both Government and the Opposition, to different degrees, of course. Since then, one senses a certain timidity by the ULP government, to even broach the matter further, leaving it to “another generation”. The Opposition, emboldened by what turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory, as it did not translate to victory in the general elections one year later, also seems unwilling to bring up the topic.

So, where does this leave the citizens of SVG? Are we satisfied with our current constitutional status, in spite of growing evidence of its limitations? The situation with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is one such issue.

From time to time, global occurrences have bearing on what would seem to be a purely local matter. The latest of these is from far away India. SEARCHLIGHT last week published an article on the appointment of India’s cricket superstar, Sachin Tendulkar, to his country’s Upper House of Parliament, tantamount to a Senator in the Caribbean context. The appointment was made possible by a constitutional provision which reserves 12 seats in the House, the Rajya Sabha, for persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as literature, science, art and social services”.

It is particularly interesting in light of our own constitutional experiences here. From very early in its life, the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) had raised the matter of civil society representation in Parliament. It had argued in a booklet entitled Choices for Change (September 2004) that such representation “…could provide a politically neutral dimension to governance..”, claiming that such an approach “…could make a remarkable difference to the way in which the nation’s affairs are conducted”.

The CRC went on to make very specific proposals about how this could be accommodated, including a mechanism for some sort of electoral process to ensure that persons so appointed had democratic endorsement. Regrettably, both sides of our own Parliament rejected the proposals entirely. Are we better off because of their decision? Will a voice representing non-partisan voices enhance the deliberations of our Parliament?

Above all, do we need a re-think of our stance on constitutional reform, a re-opening of the debate and discussion? We dare to suggest such a course.