TREVOR SUDAMA

THERE ARE a number of issues regarding the current excursion into constitutional reform cogitation.

The social, economic, and political environment with its plethora of urgent challenges and crises may not be conducive to the discussion of the subject as a foremost priority. The general indifference of the public to constitutional reform has been an issue of historical import.

The chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform, Barendra Sinanan, acknowledges the problem.

He states: “The public really does not pay attention to what is in the Constitution,” therefore “we have to energise the public.” It is difficult to envisage Sinanan or members of the committee being able to energize an apathetic public.

As an example of this apathy, I myself, between July 2010 and April 2019, have had published in the press 28 columns/letters on various elements of constitutional reform, 14 of them in 2014 alone. Many others also wrote on the subject. There was no impact on the level of public interest or consciousness.

Then there is the composition of the committee, which may not generate the required level of enthusiasm for participation and incisive discussion. This is not to impugn the qualifications, commitment, integrity, and resolve of its members. It is merely to record certain perceptions regarding a deficiency in the amplitude of competencies, knowledge, experience, and perspectives for a more comprehensive examination.

Three members have some knowledge of the workings of the House of Representatives and another of the Senate. That is half of the membership of the committee. There is one former deputy Central Bank governor, one accountant, one former permanent secretary, and one Tobago representative.

There is no expert with extensive knowledge of constitutional matters, no captain of business and industry, no representative of workers’ institutions, no one with experience of the critical processes of the executive or judiciary or the intricacies of public finance, no prominent civil society representative, and no one with local government expertise to assess matters of the devolution of power.

Then some people are of the perception that the majority of members have PNM sympathies and thus the major recommendations may merely reflect the general tenor of PNM thinking on the matter.

Commissions or committees on constitutional reform have not in the past been established in response to any vigorous agitation from the general citizenry. The most elaborate and extensive exercise on this subject was conducted during 1972-1974 by a commission chaired by Sir Hugh Wooding. It was not as a result of public demands but in response to the results of a no-vote campaign announced unilaterally in 1971 by the then prospective leader of the DLP, ANR Robinson.

The embarrassment experienced by the PNM and its leader Dr. Williams of having won all the seats in the House of Representatives in the general election of that year provided the motivation for the establishment of this co