?The Work­ing Doc­u­ment on Con­sti­tu­tion­al Re­form for Pub­lic Con­sul­ta­tion, dat­ed Jan­u­ary 9, 2009, to which is ex­hib­it­ed the draft con­sti­tu­tion for Trinidad and To­ba­go, pro­pos­es to make fun­da­men­tal changes to most of the ma­jor in­sti­tu­tions of the state. The Prime Min­is­ter, on Jan­u­ary 9, 2009, in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, in mak­ing what he con­sid­ered to be an im­por­tant state­ment on the draft con­sti­tu­tion, re­ferred to the pil­lars of Vi­sion 2020, and placed the need for con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form un­der the fifth pil­lar of Vi­sion 2020 name­ly, "Pro­mot­ing Ef­fec­tive Gov­er­nance." The Prime Min­is­ter, in lay­ing the draft con­sti­tu­tion, re­ferred to four main ar­eas of re­form in which ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance would be pro­mot­ed. The four main ar­eas men­tioned by him were the pres­i­den­cy, the Par­lia­ment, the ju­di­cial sys­tem and the Cab­i­net.

He al­so said that there would be im­proved fun­da­men­tal rights, a mod­ern and more ef­fec­tive sys­tem of lo­cal gov­ern­ment, emer­gency pro­vi­sions, and stat­ed that there were ma­jor re­forms with re­spect to the Of­fice of the Om­buds­man and the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. It is the norm that when one speaks of con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form one thinks of mak­ing changes to a con­sti­tu­tion for the bet­ter. As a mat­ter of fact, the lit­er­al mean­ing of the word "re­form" is "a change for the bet­ter as a re­sult of cor­rect­ing abus­es." We must, there­fore, ex­am­ine the pro­posed draft con­sti­tu­tion, to see what pro­posed abus­es to be cor­rect­ed by en­act­ing the pro­vi­sions of the draft con­sti­tu­tion in­to law. Let us ex­am­ine to see whether the pro­posed re­forms in the draft con­sti­tu­tion are for the bet­ter and would pro­mote ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance, as claimed by the Prime Min­is­ter.

No gen­uine at­tempt to cor­rect abus­es

Let us take an ex­am­ple by look­ing at Chap­ter 13, which deals with lo­cal gov­ern­ment. This chap­ter con­sists of one clause. That clause re­al­ly does not pro­pose any re­form, but mere­ly deals with sev­en cen­tral gov­ern­ment ad­min­is­tra­tive re­gions. This would make no dif­fer­ence to the bu­reau­cra­cy in lo­cal gov­ern­ment. It would not ad­dress or re­dress the prob­lems which cit­i­zens suf­fer dai­ly with re­spect to bad roads and drainage. Many peo­ple in Trinidad and To­ba­go suf­fer the loss of their homes, agri­cul­ture pro­duce and their be­long­ings, be­cause of bad drainage. The every-day prob­lem of bad roads, garbage col­lec­tion, ac­cess to so­cial ser­vices, health care and oth­er dai­ly de­pri­va­tions to cit­i­zens would not be re­dressed by the one clause in the draft con­sti­tu­tion.

There is no gen­uine at­tempt to cor­rect the abus­es which cit­i­zens suf­fer every day from the lack of lo­cal gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tion and the in­ef­fec­tive­ness of most of the lo­cal gov­ern­ment bod­ies. Mr Den­nis Pan­tin, well-known econ­o­mist and so­cial sci­en­tist, made sev­er­al rec­om­men­da­tions for the im­prove­ment of lo­cal gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tion. Some of these rec­om­men­da­tions in­clude pro­pos­als to de-politi­cise lo­cal gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and to make it, in­stead, true "com­mu­ni­ty rep­re­sen­ta­tion and en­hance­ment." Lo­cal gov­ern­ment bod­ies must be giv­en greater au­ton­o­my and ad­min­is­tra­tive pow­ers for them to gov­ern their lo­cal com­mu­ni­ties, sub­ject to the di­rec­tion and con­trol of the Cab­i­net. This was done for To­ba­go in the re­forms which were en­act­ed to give To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly greater ad­min­is­tra­tive pow­ers of gov­er­nance.

The con­tin­u­ous pol­i­cy of cen­tral gov­ern­ment hold­ing on to the pow­er of con­trol of the ad­min­is­tra­tion of lo­cal gov­ern­ment bod­ies would con­tin­ue to stran­gle the ef­fec­tive­ness of lo­cal gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and would con­tin­ue to de­ny cit­i­zens lo­cal gov­ern­ment jus­tice. There is no pro­pos­al in the draft con­sti­tu­tion to give ef­fect to sev­er­al of the re­forms which Mr Den­nis Pan­tin and oth­ers have called for, in­clud­ing the right of re­call of elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives if the peo­ple want them re­called be­fore the ex­piry of their elect­ed terms.

Govt holds pow­er in trust

There is no at­tempt in the draft con­sti­tu­tion to deal with the im­por­tant calls made by him and oth­ers for the ma­chin­ery of ref­er­en­da to be used, so that cit­i­zens would be able to par­tic­i­pate in im­por­tant pol­i­cy de­ci­sions made by the Gov­ern­ment. This would re­sult in par­tic­i­pa­to­ry democ­ra­cy be­ing en­joyed by the peo­ple. Cit­i­zens are at the cen­tre of gov­ern­ment, and gov­er­nance is to im­prove their lives and their hap­pi­ness. The gov­ern­ment holds of­fi­cial pow­er in trust for the peo­ple. The gov­ern­ment must, there­fore, gov­ern for the ben­e­fit of the ben­e­fi­cia­ries of that pow­er, that is the peo­ple. The present sys­tem of gov­ern­ment, in which the peo­ple can on­ly make their voice felt at a lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­tion or at a gen­er­al elec­tion, must change.

That is the fun­da­men­tal change that we need. We do not need cos­met­ic change or ex­change. We need change for the bet­ter. There must be change to have a new sys­tem of gov­er­nance in which the cit­i­zens would be able to ex­er­cise their in­flu­ence and pow­er through­out the year, and not every three or five years. The re­quire­ment of con­sul­ta­tion by gov­ern­ment with the peo­ple on im­por­tant na­tion­al is­sues be­fore the pol­i­cy for those is­sues can be ap­proved or im­ple­ment­ed must be in­sti­tu­tion­alised as a le­gal re­quire­ment which binds the gov­ern­ment. Let us take an­oth­er ex­am­ple: Chap­ter 12 of the draft con­sti­tu­tion deals with To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly. It con­sists of four claus­es which re­al­ly do not pro­pose any re­forms.

The Prime Min­is­ter, in propos­ing re­forms for To­ba­go, must take the "bull by the horns" and ef­fect full in­ter­nal self-gov­ern­ment for To­ba­go. This can be achieved with­out To­ba­go be­ing sep­a­rat­ed from Trinidad. An in­ter­nal self-gov­ern­ment of To­ba­go can be part of the sov­er­eign de­mo­c­ra­t­ic State of Trinidad and To­ba­go. Full in­ter­nal self-gov­ern­ment for To­ba­go with­in the sov­er­eign de­mo­c­ra­t­ic State of Trinidad and To­ba­go was pro­posed in a leg­isla­tive mea­sure be­fore the Par­lia­ment when I served as at­tor­ney gen­er­al in the coali­tion gov­ern­ment of UNC/NAR.

Give pow­er to the peo­ple

Both for­mer Pres­i­dent ANR Robin­son, then Min­is­ter Ex­tra­or­di­naire, and my­self pre­sent­ed to the Par­lia­ment con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form to give to the peo­ple of To­ba­go full in­ter­nal self-gov­ern­ment. The leg­isla­tive mea­sures need­ed a spe­cial ma­jor­i­ty of votes in the Par­lia­ment. The then Op­po­si­tion did not give sup­port to the leg­isla­tive mea­sures. Full in­ter­nal self-gov­ern­ment with­in the sov­er­eign de­mo­c­ra­t­ic State of Trinidad and To­ba­go is the way for­ward for the peo­ple of Trinidad and To­ba­go. Let us take the chap­ter deal­ing with the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, which the Prime Min­is­ter says would pro­mote ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance. A ma­jor pil­lar of good gov­er­nance is hon­est gov­er­nance and the pro­mo­tion of in­tegri­ty. The peo­ple of Trinidad and To­ba­go have opt­ed to have an In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion and to make those who hold pub­lic of­fice and who ex­er­cise pub­lic pow­er to be ac­count­able to it for in­tegri­ty in pub­lic life.

The draft con­sti­tu­tion would give the gov­ern­ment the pow­er to re­strict the peo­ple who hold pub­lic of­fice to be amenable and ac­count ?able to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. Clause 182 (3) of the draft con­sti­tu­tion lim­its the oblig­a­tions for peo­ple to make de­c­la­ra­tions in writ­ing of their as­sets, li­a­bil­i­ties and in­come to min­is­ters of gov­ern­ment, Mem­bers of Par­lia­ment and "the mem­bers and hold­ers of pub­lic of­fices, as may be pre­scribed." The wide net which the con­sti­tu­tion now pro­vides for those who hold pub­lic of­fice, and who ex­er­cise pub­lic func­tions, to be sub­ject to the in­tegri­ty laws of Trinidad and To­ba­go, would be re­moved. In the light of re­cent events and the pub­lic out­cry in re­spect of Ude­cott, can it be jus­ti­fied that mem­bers of the board of Ude­cott and the boards of oth­er com­pa­nies owned by the peo­ple of Trinidad and To­ba­go would not be sub­ject to the In­tegri­ty laws of Trinidad and To­ba­go, as con­tained in the con­sti­tu­tion of our coun­try?

The Gov­ern­ment, by its ma­jor­i­ty in Par­lia­ment, would, un­der the draft con­sti­tu­tion, be giv­en the pow­er to pre­scribe the pub­lic of­fi­cers who are to be sub­ject­ed to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. In­tegri­ty in pub­lic life can be ex­tin­guished as a prin­ci­ple of good gov­er­nance in Trinidad and To­ba­go. I have ex­am­ined all the chap­ters of the draft con­sti­tu­tion, and I have not been able to find any chap­ter or any pro­vi­sion which gives greater rights or pow­er to the peo­ple of Trinidad and To­ba­go. I have, in the pre­vi­ous com­men­taries on the draft con­sti­tu­tion, demon­strat­ed that in re­spect of the pres­i­den­cy, the Par­lia­ment, the ju­di­cial sys­tem, the Cab­i­net and the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions, the ex­ec­u­tive pres­i­dent would have in­flu­ence and con­trol which can un­der­mine and sub­vert the in­de­pen­dence and im­par­tial­i­ty of these in­sti­tu­tions.

In the pre­vi­ous com­men­taries, I have al­so shown that in re­spect of the ser­vice com­mis­sions, the Elec­tions and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion and oth­er in­de­pen­dent com­mis­sions, the fact that the ex­ec­u­tive pres­i­dent would ex­er­cise both the pow­ers of prime min­is­ter and head of state can ad­verse­ly af­fect the in­de­pen­dence of these com­mis­sions. I have demon­strat­ed that po­lice of­fi­cers, pub­lic of­fi­cers and teach­ers would not be in­su­lat­ed from the po­lit­i­cal arm of the gov­ern­ment, as they are now in­su­lat­ed by means of their ser­vice com­mis­sions. With great­est re­spect to the Prime Min­is­ter, I have found noth­ing in the chap­ter of the draft con­sti­tu­tion deal­ing with emer­gency pro­vi­sions and the Of­fice of the Om­buds­man which would give greater rights to the peo­ple or which would pro­mote more ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance.

The Prime Min­is­ter, in Par­lia­ment in his state­ment on the 9th Jan­u­ary 2009 al­so list­ed these two ar­eas in sup­port of his state­ment that the draft con­sti­tu­tion would pro­mote ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance. Pro­mot­ing ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance and mak­ing a change for the bet­ter as a re­sult of cor­rect­ing abus­es re­quire gov­ern­ment to give more pow­er to the peo­ple to be able to par­tic­i­pate in the de­ci­sions of gov­ern­ment so that there can be par­tic­i­pa­to­ry democ­ra­cy. The coun­try needs more than for­mal democ­ra­cy. Cit­i­zens need sub­stan­tive democ­ra­cy, that is the en­joy­ment of the val­ues of democ­ra­cy which would pro­duce so­cial, eco­nom­ic and po­lit­i­cal jus­tice for all.

Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj, SC, Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment for Tabaquite;

Pres­i­dent of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Civ­il Rights As­so­ci­a­tion.