Reforming Sensibly... (What's Behind Door Number 2?)

The United States of America is considered the leader of the 'free world' and considers itself the de-facto leader of world position on all major issues, yet it is governed by a Constitution that has been amended twenty seven times and counting. From freedoms of speech, religion and the right to assemble; to petition the government and of freedom of the press, the amendments of the United States Supreme Law has corrected and directed that nation over the course of its development and realigned it with the will of its people as circumstances dictated. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the second amendment and the right to protection against illegal search and seizure by the government without some form of due process is enshrined in the fourth. The seventh provides for trial by jury, the eight prohibits excessive fines and bail. The tenth limits the powers of the government, the twelfth revises Presidential action procedures, the thirteenth abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude. The fourteenth establishes citizenship and the fifteenth protects the right to vote; the nineteenth guarantees women that same right, the eighteenth and twenty first establishes and cancels prohibition of alcohol. The twenty second limits the terms of a President, and the twenty seventh prevents Congress from voting themselves a raise in pay in the current term in Office to prevent abuse. Using this model as an example, wouldn't it be more prudent to go the amendment route than to try to reform our entire Constitution?

Putting aside for a moment that the people positioning themselves to promote this reform of our Supreme Law are people who have demonstrated that they ought not to be trusted based solely on their track record, the issue must rest on the needs of the people not the politicians. The most urgent of those issues – procurement legislation, campaign finance reform, recall legislation to remove non performing Members of Parliament, term limits for public office holders, legislation governing race relations and equal opportunity before all state institutions and bodies, even the functioning of the protective services in general and the Trinidad & Tobago Police Service in particular could all be dealt with piecemeal through separate legislation and amendments to the Constitution without all of this fan fare.

Clearly we are lacking at the leadership level the understanding of what is needed here in the first place, and until this or any government get it I believe we the people of Trinidad & Tobago ought to err on the side of caution. As in all things that can damage indelibly if results fall short of intentions, here is an ideal opportunity to test the waters before diving right in.

So what should we do? Perhaps the first amendment that ought to be piloted should be referendum legislation so as to create the mechanism upon which all further consultation could be built. Once we have adequate reporting and debating structure in place the population at large should be encouraged to get involved in the process from the suggestion stage and provide leadership from the ground up with a view towards fixing what needs fixing while leaving everything else alone.

Everyone agrees that there are shortfalls in our Constitution that needs addressing if we want to improve the way our county is managed, but these shortfalls could be met through amendments wherever required as suggested here, rather than tinker with a document that, for all its shortcomings, has held us together for the past fifty years despite our valiant attempts at tearing ourselves apart.