Caught in a constitutional bind

December 12, 2001

What a country! That a regime which collapsed after only nine months in office; that breaks every law in the book and every socially acceptable convention, some members of which have been indicted on numerous civil and criminal charges ranging from voter padding to murder; whose leader, himself, has been found guilty before the courts on two occasions of favouritism and bias in the awarding of particular contracts, a most damning characteristic for someone holding the office of Prime Minister who is supposed to be fair and just in his dealings with public affairs that such a regime could get 18 seats after virtually dying in office; after increasing the public debt to a new high of some $30 billion in a mere six years; that anyone could commit all these "political do-nots" and still capture so many votes and command so many "minds" is a downright, dirty, low-down shame.

That is not democracy. That is a throw-back to the backward ages when people worshiped "royalty" and blood-lines and caste-lines and leadership was about supposed proximity to the "divine one" and the capability to rally tribal cohesion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Democracy has nothing to do with such. Democracy is a modern concept that is premised on intelligent functioning of all who comprise society. It involves the reasoning of human beings, the capability to assess information, to weigh options, set priorities and set in motion a "process" that, through an interlocking of various stages, results in social development.

And, though this process does not ever follow a straight line and there are no guarantees there will not be setbacks along the way, even reversal in some cases, nevertheless the eventual objective of all democratic activity is the fullest possible empowerment of everybody to the last person.

Democracy has nothing to do with accident of birth, blood, racial background nor religious persuasion. As long as elections and political activity in T&T remain confined to racial and religious parameters, our democratic development will be stymied.

Already, since the result of 18-18 has been declared, we have been hearing comments on the radio call-in shows about "not wanting any nigger government", and in the course of this week we probably also may hear the very reverse being expressed, though many may disagree there will be any such eventuality.

However, we can say without fear what we just experienced on Monday and the weeks prior was a most disgraceful and backward exercise in moral responsibility in public affairs. It began with the outrageous lies and propaganda, like the claim about the "taking away of bus passes", the allegations that "schoolbags in T&T remained empty for 36 years" and the so-called "revolution in education", etc, etc.

In a modern democracy, no one will be able to get away with such arrant, historic nonsense. They not only got away with this, but managed to bombard and abuse our sensibilities to the nth degree, spending millions of dollars via radio, TV and newspapers.

But by far the biggest insult to us would have to be the Elections and Boundaries Commission which, even after it received state funding to the tune of some $10 million, it managed to end up with an even dirtier electoral list.

Under no circumstances should this country go back to the polls until the electoral list is cleaned up. The incumbents seem not to desire such an exercise and this fact will serve to even further tie the President's hands.

There is no constitutional arrangement for the instituting of any "caretaker government", moreso with any specific conditionality in this case relevant to the organising of elections. The President cannot summarily dismiss the EBC commissioners ­ there first has to be an investigative commission that reports to Parliament and, if the EBC then is found to be guilty of any wrongdoing or to be incompetent, it then can be removed.

But in the mean, what is the President to do? To even convene a Parliament there must be some agreement between the parties with regard to the choice of Speaker of the House.

Will they be able to hammer out an agreement as to how to proceed? On what legal grounds will the President stand to justify his decision to choose either Panday or Manning to form a government? There seems to be none.

And if he claims the people through the medium of elections have not spoken definitely in clear enough terms to enable him to make a decision, then he may call for new a election immediately.

But who will want to engage once again with that electoral list? We are in a constitutional bind!

The President will have to break new ground or we will flounder into all kinds of violent possibilities! It is as simple and as complex as that!