Eustace – Say something besides ‘No’!

12.JUNE.09

Editor: “No” is not a philosophy. Nor is saying “Stop It!” or “I disagree” to every proposal made.

The newspapers have dutifully reported that the Leader of the Opposition will encourage his supporters to vote “no” on the new Constitution. He has penned an open letter to the people of SVG entitled “Stop it! Stop it!”{{more}} Presumably, the repetition is meant to reinforce the strength of his conviction, but it merely reveals the shallowness of his loud but ultimately vacuous opposition at this historic moment.

I have read his open letter carefully. And I re-read it. But I still cannot find the basis for his vehement opposition to the Constitution.

He begins by complaining that he only got to speak for 20 minutes, while our typically long-winded PM droned on for an hour and a half. This is obviously neither here nor there, and simply exhibits once again his unique ability to shrink to a level of pettiness that is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the moment.

Mr. Eustace then lists 6 “contradictions” of Mr. Gonsalves while in office. Specifically, he says that Mr. Gonsalves (i) victimizes Vincentians; (ii) arbitrarily transfers public servants; (iii) initiated the “road block revolution” to remove the NDP from power; (iv) has been opaque on the funding of the Argyle International Airport; (v) has imposed taxes on people traveling to the Grenadines; and (vi) has emasculated civil society.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Gonsalves and the ULP are guilty of each and every one of these charges. How does this strengthen his argument for a “No” vote? The fact is that all of these alleged abuses were committed under the EXISTING Constitution, which was apparently unable to stop them. That seems to me an argument in favor of changing the current Constitution, not retaining it through a “No” vote. If Mr. Gonsalves did all of these terrible things under the current Constitution, and the NDP and its battery of lawyers couldn’t stop him on Constitutional grounds, then we surely need a new Constitution.

The first half of the “open letter,” therefore, does nothing to convince me that I should vote “No.” On the contrary, it suggests that I should vote “Yes”!

But Mr. Eustace is not finished. He goes on to attack the new Constitution with the following, general arguments: (i) the ruling party will still have the stronger hand in naming the President than the Opposition; (ii) a larger House of Assembly will not effectively limit the PM’s powers; (iii) the PM still has too much say in the selection of members of the Public Service Commission; and (iv) that the calculus involved in valuing government-acquired property is faulty.

These are the four problems, according to Mr. Eustace. He also moans that he doesn’t like the name “Minority Leader,” but the less said about such petty personal complaining, the better.

Again, let us assume that Mr. Eustace is spot-on, and that his four complaints are absolutely correct. Is this the basis for a “no” vote? None of those four issues puts the Prime Minister in a stronger position than he already is today. If Mr. Eustace believes that a larger house of assembly will not diffuse the power of the Prime Minister, he needs only to look at the difficulties that Gordon Brown is having in England, or the trouble that Barack Obama has in passing legislation in the United States, despite overwhelming majorities in the Congress. Closer to home, he needs only consider his own difficulties in maintaining his leadership over a two senators and two MPs. Imagine Mr. Eustace trying to lead 20!

Parnel Campbell, QC published an article in the paper last week listing “seven specific ways” that the power of the Prime Minister is reduced in the new Constitution, along with other general reductions. Read that article, then weigh it against the four points in Mr. Eustace’s letter. Or put Mr. Eustace’s four issues against the 35 innovations listed in last week’s ULP column, not to mention the speech by the Prime Minister himself. There must be more upon which he is basing his opposition. I cannot accept that such scarce and trifling issues will compel his loud objection to this Constitution.

The new Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, strengthens the role of the Leader of the Opposition, provides for an Integrity Commission, a Human Rights Commission, a Teaching Services Commission and an Electoral and Boundaries Commission. It severs our ties to the Queen of England. It establishes the Caribbean Court of Justice as our final court of appeal. Put those issues alone against Mr. Eustace’s griping, and the emptiness and short-sightedness of his opposition is clear.

Mr. Eustace also concedes in his letter that the role of the Leader of the Opposition is strengthened. But apparently, not strong enough for his liking. It seems as if he envisaged the Constitution reducing the powers of the Prime Minister and increasing the powers of the Leader of the Opposition in such a manner as to make them equal. This desire seems based on his obvious and short-sighted distaste for Mr. Gonsalves. But such a view is impractical and unwise.

This Constitution will outlive both Mr. Gonsalves and Mr. Eustace. It is a document for the ages. He must put aside his dislike for Mr. Gonsalves and view the Constitution through the prism of the national good – not short term political shenanigans.

The deeper problem for Mr. Eustace is that he is looking for a document to make him stronger, instead of looking to himself. It is not the Constitution that has made him weak and discredited as a political force. The Constitution did not cause his electoral defeats any more than it has caused the current dissention in his party ranks. And no amount of legal editing will solve those problems for him. Instead, he needs to voice credible solutions and alternatives to Vincentians beyond his knee-jerk reaction of all things associated with Mr. Gonsalves. What alternatives or new Constitutional proposals

has Mr. Eustace suggested in his letter? None. (To be fair, he has a longstanding view in favour of Prime Ministerial term limits, but that is all).

This moment demands more than what we have seen from Mr. Eustace. In the face of the Argyle Airport, he opposed without explanation or alternative. In the face of PetroCaribe, the same. In the face of Universal Access to Secondary Education, the same. In the face of Operation Vincy Pac, the same. Now, at the grandest historical moment in the political history of our young nation, he again shirks his responsibilities to the people and shrinks instead of rising to the occasion. This is not the time for petty politics, trivialities, or short-sighted obstructionism, Mr. Eustace. This time, we, the people, expect and demand more of you than you have shown thus far.

A Patriot