One of the major revelations of the protest and support actions outside the Senate and two weeks ago when the House of Representatives met to debate the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2014 is the willingness of people to come out to let their points of view be known.
The democratic showing was not ideal, as it was clear that many were there at the bidding of their parties. That notwithstanding, the protests and support actions are indicative of a democracy that is alive and well and that many citizens feel free enough to put on their yellow or red shirts and even those whose garments do not fit into the political colours were also free to be there.In many countries of the world such actions are not possible, but it is a credit to the resoluteness of people to claim their space.
Think for instance of the dozen or so citizens who remained outside the Parliament building until the morning of the debate in the Lower House and sang the national anthem when the Parliamentarians were leaving after the bill was passed.That is the kind of character out of which a nation is built.
In the same manner that justice handed down from the courts of the land cannot be considered a "cloistered virtue" free from the expression of public opinion, so too law-making, especially constitution reform, cannot be an exercise for Parliamentarians without the input of citizens.Unfortunately, there were those who resorted easily to the view that any such protest would intimidate the Independent Senators.
Thankfully though, both before and during the debate, Independents such as Helen Drayton, Dr Rolph Balgobin, Victor Wheeler, Dhanayshar Mahabir made it clear that they cannot be intimidated. Moreover, Senator Ian Roach said he had benefitted tremendously from opinions expressed in the media by professional commentators and the voices of ordinary people on the streets.
Building a democracy is not a Sunday School activity and there should be no attempt to make men and women of straw out of the Independent Senators; if they can be so easily intimidated then they do not deserve their positions.
One other major element of the protests was the crowd-handling exercised by the police. There are conflicting reports on whether or not the police used excessive force to keep the peace. Indeed, the questions go to the display of heavy weaponry by the police. Is that the kind of show of force really necessary for such demonstrations? There is no recent history of crowds protesting outside the Parliament becoming violent.
It could even be contended that the aggression and show of force by the police antagonised protestors especially into believing that attempts were being made to deprive them of their right to protest.If, as reported, the police contingent seemed to be getting instructions from inside the Parliament and perhaps also from the Minister of National Security through their senior, this surely complicates matters and makes the officers subject to others pulling their strings.
PNM Senator Faris Al-Rawi claim that absent for part of the period outside of the Parliament were senior police to direct operations and make decisions as needed is also cause for concern.As has been reported and become clear, support for and protest against this bill is being displayed on a very partisan and tribal basis. That is surely not something that is wanted in the reforming of the Constitution and especially the process for electing MPs.
In a generalised sweep of the history of making of constitutions, Senator Bhoe Tewarie argued that the PNM has in the past abrogated rights and took undemocratic decisions. Question is, should this form of political behaviour be allowed to continue into this era?