Republicanism – the essence thereof

17.JULY.09

Editor: The founding fathers of the now “Great America” were inspired by God to enact a written constitution that established that their rights are God-given and inalienable. Therefore, they set up adequate checks and balances to ensure that the rights of all are protected and governed by the immutable rule of law. This philosophy of governance includes recognizing that the rights of the people are the firm basis of government and so they are set-up to protect such rights. In so doing, they framed a constitution with a Bill of rights that describes the rights of the people as inalienable and God -given.{{more}} They set up the senate to bring adequate checks and balances for government. These help to facilitate greater protection for the rights of the people from government’s encroachment.

When I heard Mr. Ghany speak in his deliberation in Parliament on the 28th of May, 2009, stating that our country would be the 4th republic in the Caribbean, I thought that some of these essential principles outlined above would be embedded in our constitution. I would like to believe that both drafters are quite aware as to what constitutes a republican- type of government. I am quite sure that they don’t think that it entails just having a president, especially one that is not elected by the people but rather by parliament. Is this close to what a true republican state is supposed to be? No! However, if we choose not to go for the fully executive president, we should really consider allowing for the creation of an upper house of senators. These senators can be elected by the people at general elections, along with independent senators appointed by the president. It creates checks and balances on government powers through senators who are elected by the people. Moreover, the senators will help to select a president that is not just pro- government but more representative. What we have here described in the propose constitution seems to suggest that the Governor General now has a new name – “PRESIDENT”.

Furthermore, I later was led to understand that the drafters, in recognizing like the founding fathers that our rights are God-given and inalienable, imputed this beautiful statement in the constitution: “Realize that the maintenance of human dignity requires solemn appreciation that man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights and freedoms as ideals, including the right to life, liberty and privacy, the right to have and raise a family, the right to own property, and the right to the pursuit of just economic rewards for labour, which inalienable rights are to be safeguarded.” Doesn’t this statement describing our rights as inalienable (cannot be separated or transferred from you) legally justify a greater sense of respect of our rights by government? Yes, they are faced with the fact that our rights come from a higher source- God – our creator, and so the very fact that we are created means that we have rights and so demands respect of such rights by all.

However, some argue that describing our rights as inalienable is a matter of semantics and so offers no practical benefit. But shame on you. In this 21st century, are men more intellectually clogged and dumb than men in 1776 when they saw the need to describe the rights of man as inalienable and God- endowed in the American declaration? The practical benefit is that you have a phrase in the highest law of the land protecting against tyranny of the majority, as the philosophy of Republicanism is grounded on the immutable rule of law and not just what the majority says (sovereign democratic state). And remember this principle is inter-connected with the pillar of equal rights for all. So stop spreading your stupid and willful ignorance and arrogance, stating that if rights are described as inalienable it means that people could go and do what they feel like without penalty. The same God that created us with the inalienable right to life speaks in Genesis 9:6 of forfeiting a man’s right to life when he takes another man’s right to life through say murdering him. Thus, the insertion of such a term shows that at least we are on our way to a republic state but I dread what the removal of the statement above reflects.

Kisha Sutherland