Are we ready for a referendum on Constitution Reform?

24.JULY.09

Editor: Further to my recent experience as a participant on a weekly radio-panel discussion – “Let’s Talk Constitution,” the following question is rather fitting: Are we, after 30 years of independence from our colonial masters, ready for a referendum on constitution reform?{{more}}

A number of callers to that show alluded to the various points of view that were not included in the Constitution Bill 2009, and of particular note was the report of the frequent absences of the New Democratic Party in the process, for whatever reason. If the New Democratic Party does represent 40% of the nation and SVG is politically divided as is evident every day, then, arguably, the constitution could not reflect the views of a significant section of the Vincentian populace. Not uncommon is the allegation of people losing their jobs for simply wearing the colors red or yellow without being labeled as “not for government”, and as a result suffer serious consequences. Some have suffered humiliating poverty from losing their jobs for wearing any of the colors belonging to the “wrong” political party.

The prescriptive nature of the reformed constitution has brought to bear another form of intolerance that is laced with double standards. Why are we making the point that only marriages between persons “born man and woman” will be legal in SVG? How much more harm does a marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex do to our society than that of predominantly old men having sex with boys and or girls and in most cases non-consenting adults? Why do we not see a prescription for the process of investigating the truth of such allegations against men in high places, especially? Why is the punishment not prescribed in this constitution for such men? Above all, why do we not see some restraint on the power of these men to rally support to maintain their positions while their alleged victims are demonized?

Diaspora involvement in the constitution reform process is as questionable an issue and I have no qualms at holding the prime minister directly responsible for its haphazard nature. It was he who, in 2001, handpicked one of his friends in New York as the Diaspora representative on the Constitution Reform Commission in order to exclude a particular New York based organization that he determined to be an organ of the New Democratic Party. Apart from maybe contacting the consulate in New York, the embassy in Washington, DC, or tuning into SVG radio stations on the internet, we in the Diaspora have no other means of keeping abreast with the process of the constitution reform in SVG. There has been no organized discussion since the last meeting some 6 or so years ago. On recent contact with the consulate and embassy, no one was aware of the US Diaspora representative on the Constitution Reform Commission, and in fact, there has hardly been a presence. This is particularly troubling since there has been some stated political commitment to include Vincentians in the Diaspora in nation building. The ULP manifesto of the 2001 affirms this.

To add insult to injury, there has been little attempt to introduce term limits for individuals holding the position of prime minister and even less on the issue of disproportionate representation in the house. This means we will hardly see an end to the tyranny of the majority that has always existed in our politics and the naked corruption that goes with it. For example, why do we need an integrity commission when we have not fully implemented the existing rules on this matter? Why do we not see a set date for our general elections so as to reduce the political trickery that goes with setting these dates? Over the years these dates are either prolonged or ‘snap-shotted’, and more recently astrology and numerology have been thrown in the mix.

So, where are we after years of a make-belief consultation, politically immature conduct from our politicians, general narrow-mindedness and God knows the financial cost of this exercise? We are, under a “revolutionary” administration, at the end of a consultation process that seems devoid of any informed debate about the rights of our people and the sources of those rights. For example, the fact that some claim that SVG is a Christian nation does not mean that our constitution should only provide rights for Christian believers and little for religious minorities. There is a school of thought based on the notion that there is but one God and people reach that supernatural being through different intermediaries: Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Rastafari and all the others. Further, the religious minorities among us which include the agnostics (doubtfuls) and atheists (none believers) cannot be denied their rights, especially since our government has committed us in 1980 that “[E]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without … distinction … on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2).

Distressing, it certainly is, that in 2009 we are forced to decide whether to vote against a colonial constitution (NO) or (yes) for a locally-formed, constitutional lasso around our necks for another 30 years or longer. The debate for constitution reform must go on in earnest, even on the eve of the referendum whenever it is called.

Luzette