Most of the proposed changes are just cosmetic

19.JUNE.09

Editor: The debates and discussions continue on the constitutional Bill that has been launched in parliament. The more I follow the deliberations (through Newspaper articles/columns, radio and TV programs), the more I realize that most of the changes proposed in the constitutional Bill 2009 are just cosmetic.{{more}} When they are examined thoughtfully (without political bias), I observe that there is hardly any novelty of enhancement as is championed by the Prime Minister, Parnell Campbell et al. In fact, as I consider the document and make comparison with the present constitution, I keep wondering ‘were the real interests and sound desires of the Vincentian people honestly considered in drafting the Bill? I keep asking myself ‘Is this quality improvement or just (quantity) additional bulk?

Let us take for example Chapter 11, nos. 21 of Guiding Principles of State Policy which states “women and men have equal rights and the same legal status on all spheres of political, economic, cultural and social life. All forms of discrimination against women and men on the basis of their sex are prohibited…”

This principle is nothing innovative. In our current constitution, this is taken care of under section 13 called “protection from discrimination on the grounds of race, etc.”

Point seven (7iii) in the Bill under the same section Guiding Principles, tells us “ …the separation of powers, particularly the personnel and powers of the Judiciary from those of the Legislature(Parliament)

and the Executive (Government).”

This is theoretical and it is nothing newer or better than what exists. If there is such an interest in separation of powers, then why was a senate rejected or a bicameral house where bills can be properly scrutinized, debated and, rejected if needs be; all geared towards protection of Rights and Freedoms of the people? Why was a republican form of government not accepted and reflected in the Bill? A Republican form of government is not simply about having a President instead of a Governor General. It is a philosophy of government (the best in a sinful world) that is rooted in the alienability of the Rights of man, thus it embodies certain structures to reflect this, which include: The immutable Rule of Law, the separation of powers, the extent of government functions, and a Bill of rights that defines our God-given inalienable Rights. All this is for the further protection of the Rights and Freedoms of both majority and minority.

The above mentioned-points bring me to stress again, in agreement with other citizens, that the word INALIENABLE should be used to describe our rights and freedoms. This word is so filled with substance and rich history, that any people who understand and appreciate its value is bound to be better in attitude and behavior towards their fellowmen. Believe it or not, it will make a more prosperous, mature and rights-friendly society. Inalienable means ‘cannot be bought, sold or transferred from one individual to another, sacrosanct, inherent and absolute.’

Just consider for a moment the foundation-laying, prosperity-breeding principle of the American Declaration of Independence (sometimes referred to as the preamble of the US constitution) which states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. Those to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Indeed the bedrock of constitutionalism is inalienability. If this is kept at heart, all other provisions or laws of a country will reflect this grand and essential principle.

I sincerely do not see a need for the section called Guiding Principles in the constitutional Bill. An enhanced preamble in which Rights and Freedoms are described as inalienable and coming from the Creator-God is more than sufficient to set the tone of the constitution. This is what the preamble should do. Its work is to be the guiding principle of the document. So I ask, let’s make our constitution enhanced, more peoples-friendly…concise, precise and forget the additional bulk and cosmetic changes.

Ann-Marie John

svgpatriot@hotmail.com