Thinking things over

For years and years now, I have had my copy of Thinking Things Over within easy reach. If you didn’t know, the 90-something page booklet comprises the report of the Constitution Commission of 1987.

There is an emotional attachment to this report partly because of my contribution to the public hearings as then President of the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MATT) and my arguments for retaining “freedom of the press” as item 4(k) of our enshrined rights.

This rather unique feature of our constitution nestles alongside “freedom of thought and expression” – in other Caribbean jurisdictions considered to be an umbrella concept not necessarily requiring further explicit elaboration.

I have also referred to the report especially when politicians and others decide to toss “constitutional reform” into topical, contentious brews.

Late Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, whose death on January 1 served to re-ignite interest in the subject, was fond of invoking suggested reform (albeit in habitually vague terms) at the slightest hint of conflict or whenever he thought he should have reminded people about states of societal “alienation” in one form or another.

The late Lloyd Best was also similarly inclined, especially on the point of expanding the roles and functions and general status of local government and reformulating the form and role of parliament.

But none of this has been a novel or narrow obsession, as the Report of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform of 2024, chaired by Barendra Sinanan, reminds us.

The seminal (Hugh) Wooding Report and Draft Constitution of 1974; the report of the 1987 (Isaac) Hyatali Commission (Thinking Things Over); the “Principles of Fairness” Committee Report of 2006; and the work of the (Prakash) Ramadhar Committee of 2013 are all referenced as essential recollections.

If this catalogue of consultations and ensuing reports proves one thing, it is that there has been longstanding, diligent concern about changing some fundamental rules of the national game across the spectrum of political and sectional interests.

It is important, I believe, for all citizens to have views of their own on the rules and principles of national governance.

Proper political parties and all civil society organisations ought to promote activities and develop platforms that help educate their members on such matters and encourage open dialogue on options for change to match dynamic circumstances. This goes way beyond hosting ad hoc party “consultations.”

Instead, the Sinanan Report lists over 230 “non-constitutional recommendations” from the public and some organisations - important as many of them are as discrete legislative/regulatory measures, but not matters to guide reform of the constitution.

The current report should now be the focus of informed study by all groups with an interest in changing/maintaining important rules of the game, and the main principles that guide them.

It represents a high-quality encapsulation of the main highlights of past exercises and proposes a menu of options for further elaboration at a proposed seven-day “National Constitutional Conference.”

The report also proposes a 14-point agenda dissecting essential subjects from the Preamble to a listing of “Collateral Issues.” Even so, the Commission has acknowledged these activities to include some rather complex processes and are, for the most part, not immediately achievable objectives or ends in themselves.

As a journalist and newspaper columnist I have had the opportunity to explore numerous points of concern with clear personal biases in favour of, among other things, state secularism, elimination of the colonial savings clause, and entrenching a role for the Caribbean Court of Justice.

My own list of options is relatively limited partly because I believe it is impossible to legislate away attitudes and longstanding societal habits and practices.

But there are numerous other interests in contention. In that light, the report concedes that “given the political environment and the huge challenges the society is currently facing, scepticism and even cynicism is not unwarranted.”

What has so far emerged as outright dismissal on the grounds of partisan convenience or “gimmickry” is defamatory not only of the members of the Commission but of a process whose timing has always confronted the challenge of election calendars.

The report of the Ramadhar Committee, for instance, emerged during a year of local government elections and some of its proposals, once set for parliamentary decision, died upon a changing of the political guard in 2015.

There has to come a time when this kind of work produces more tangible results. People must also make the issues covered more present in the public discourse. This most recent effort is worthy of deep, collective consideration. It is a fine piece of work that signals yet another start requiring satisfactory outcomes.