Attempts to amend this country's Constitution tend to give rise to spasmodic controversy and, sometimes, heated public debate-often characterised by the generation of more heat than light. Not surprisingly so, as "in the night, all cats are grey." However, there does not appear to be the sustained interest in "constitutional matters" as there is for what are generally regarded as "bread and butter" or, in some cases, even "jam and wine" issues. The current declared state of emergency has provided an opportunity to straddle the delicate balance between "the rights of the individual and collective security."
There is also the strident, incessant claim by a numerically small group that our Constitution, in particular the electoral system cum the largely ethnically based parties (loud protests notwithstanding), produces or-if you prefer-tends to produce "a winner take all" rather than "an all take win" result. Our most recent attempt at constitutional reform, to effect the further concentration of power in a single pair of hands, was, in my view, fortunately, stillborn and might well have been foisted on an unwary electorate if the anticipated electoral majority had materialised or a political deal could have been struck between two "political impresarios," neither supreme. How this hypothesis escaped not a few self-styled political analysts puzzles me, but, of course, I may be grossly mistaken.
Although the call for constitutional reform predates the Eric Williams era, he was probably the one who gave it that added impetus and placed it squarely in the public domain. However, although Dr Williams was able and ready to expound on all the niceties and intricacies of constitutions, I'd like to thank anyone who can persuade me that his interest went beyond a constitution that was not tailor-made to suit him. I'm not casting any aspersion, after all, the man was what he was and that's about the size of it. Adult suffrage predated the Eric Williams era.
We had the legislative and executive formats, with the colonial governor being firmly in control and ultimately responsible to whoever was his boss at the colonial office. Unless I'm mistaken, the governor selected individual ministers and assigned portfolios. Albert Marie Gomes held the portfolios of both ministries of industry and labour. That made him a virtual power house, as he flitted here, there and everywhere to this, that and the other conference. Incidentally, one Dr Eric Williams, one-time friend, was his personal adviser. And thereby hangs a tale. Apparently, there's nothing new under the T&T political sun.
Gomes got a lot of political flak for reportedly boasting that "I am the government" and "in politics, anything goes." Subsequently, I seem to recall a Prime Minister telling an audience "who doh like" a particular decision that he intended to take, should "get to hell out of here." Do you think that a British Prime Minister or a US President could get away with that? Another fellow, in the Gomes style, informed us that "politics had a morality or its own." He surmised also that "constitutions don't make leaders, leaders make constitutions." Like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Dr Williams was deaf in one ear and also used to refer to himself in the third person. A subsequent Prime Minister followed suit. I've sometimes wondered at the possibility of Julius Caesar following in the illustrious footprints of our esteemed PMs. "Together, they conspired; together, they deceived."
Seriously speaking, Shakespeare must have known what he was writing about when he penned, "Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief authority, makes such fantastic tricks, that could only make the angels weep." For my part, I can only ask, "Upon what meat do those our Caesars feed?" Or whether "it's in our stars or in ourselves that we are underlings?" Ironically, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher drew a bit of ridicule in the British press as "Britain's other queen," when she insisted on referring to herself in the third person. One recalls the large crowds marching up and down the place, with their hands in the air, shouting "Power!" Williams kept an uncanny silence although he was not unaware of the possibility of a certain PM's goose being cooked.
Asked at a private function for a response, Williams reportedly retorted, "You mean that rabble out there?" In a more public forum, Williams blurted out, "They talk about power, well I am the man with the power." And make no mistake, his dominance of his party and the Constitution itself substantiated his boast. In fairness to him, it ought to be said that he never credibly subscribed, as Guyana's Burnham and others did, to the party's paramountcy over and above the dead letter of a paper constitution, buttressed by a transparently fraudulent electoral process. Indubitably, Guyana's constitution was largely irrelevant, adult suffrage was virtually a political farce, as Guyanese elected (no pun intended) to vote with their feet instead.
In our case, although we have long enjoyed an untainted "parliamentary democracy," we should be more sensitive to the fact that "a mathematical mandate," in the circumstances, need not be overwhelming, or as others have misperceived it, as "a mandate from the political heaven." Where are they now?
THOUGHTS
• Seriously speaking, Shakespeare must have known what he was writing about when he penned, "Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief authority, makes such fantastic tricks, that could only make the angels weep."
• For my part, I can only ask, "Upon what meat do those our Caesars feed?" Or whether "it's in our stars or in ourselves that we are underlings?"