A failed referendum

The proponents of the constitution claimed that there were sixty reasons why the constitution should succeed; the opposition said that they had twenty reasons why the constitution should fail. I would dare to say that there are one hundred and one reasons why the constitution failed. It is time for postmortem as the referendum is done and over and the nays have it. I am astonished that the administration did not see this result coming. Where were the pollsters?{{more}} Where was the vision, the foresight? Did the administration proceed despite the prediction of the pollsters? Polls are modern day tools which are fairly reliable.

The facts are simple, not rocket science. There has not been a general election in recent times that yielded two-thirds majority for the winning side. Hence it could be deduced that without the opposition on board the constitution was doomed to failure. I had on several occasions referred to the rabid politicking and the recriminations on both sides. In fact, people paid attention more to the electioneering rather than the constitution. The proposed constitution had no chance of surviving, taking into consideration the behavior which preceded it.

It is widely felt that the no vote was carried with the help of supporters of the ULP and the independent vote. Yes, there is an independent group in the electorate similar to that in the United States, contrary to the opinions of the political fanatics who want to deny it by painting everyone with a political red or yellow brush. Simply put, the no vote against the constitution was augmented by those who were swayed by issues and some ULP supporters, notwithstanding the fact that both sides had their bases or their diehards who would never vote out side their party. The stay at home, the abstainers, also contributed to the failure of the constitution and it is most likely that the ULP supporters stayed at home and passively allowed the constitution to be thrown out. This means that some people had some problems with the constitution itself because they were not sufficiently educated about it or they disapproved of the rush. However, many seem to feel that it provided an opportunity for persons to register their disapproval of the policies of the administration.

Based on the talking points leading up to the referendum, one could say that the vote transcended the constitution and those who listened to radio stations would have heard many people expressing their fears with the directions that our foreign policy is taking. They spoke about Alba and the Chavez connection. Some, despite the building boom, have been anxious about the many short comings of the administration and the current economic climate. Some persons were annoyed that the referendum was allowed to go on despite the shrill cries of persons who were asking for more time to digest it. No one would deny that sufficient time was devoted to consultation, but many people felt that there was an unholy rush after the document was put into print. The results, therefore, show that no one should take the electorate for granted. It cannot be blamed for any miscalculations on anyone’s part.

For a new constitution to succeed, both sides have to iron out their differences, collaborate and take the electorate into a truly viable partnership. The people have spoken loud and clear. The proposed constitution and the referendum are now history but would be talking points for a very long time. Perhaps another generation would retrieve it from the down heap where it is cast.

Ada Johnson is a solicitor and barrister-at-law.
E-mail address is: exploringthelaw@yahoo.com