As we are about to celebrate our 48th anniversary as a republic, the country is confronted with the reality that its Coat of Arms will be snuffed out by the proverbial snap of the prime ministerial finger and “not a damned dog barked.”
The Coat of Arms debate should become a major source of discussion this Republic Day as the decision was made without any public consultation whatsoever, and the absence of any outcry suggests more of a paper cup patriotism that is easily disposed of rather than a lasting feeling of identity and belief in our national symbols, which ought to evoke strong emotions if there is any tampering.
I had previously indicated in my column on September 1 instant that Eric Williams was being cancelled by this sudden decision by Prime Minister Rowley to change the Coat of Arms, which had been carefully crafted by Eric Williams and his Cabinet just before independence based on recommendations from the then Cabinet-appointed committee chaired by Marguerite Wyke.
Further, minor changes to the original design were approved by Williams while he was in London following the Trinidad and Tobago Independence Conference at Marlborough House that ended on June 8, 1962, as reported in the Sunday Guardian on July 15, 1962. Subsequently, according to the Sunday Guardian on August 5, 1962, in a front-page story, “One addition and three changes have been made to the Trinidad and Tobago Coat of Arms as originally released by the Independence Celebrations Committee. A ship’s wheel now stands before the palm tree on the Crest, distinguishing it from that of Penang, one of the British Crown colonies in the East Indies. Columbus’ three caravels have been enlarged, permitting greater details. The ship at the apex is larger than the two below. To accommodate this change, the Argent above the vessels has been considerably narrowed. The third alteration is the direction of the flight of the two hummingbirds; instead of both going west, they are now facing each other. According to Mr Hugh Harris, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Royal College of Arms has approved the changes …”
From the policy recommendations of the committee in June 1962 to the minor adjustments approved by the Premier while he was in London in July 1962 to the final amendments approved by August 1962, the Coat of Arms was a work of great significance for this country that was settled after considerable thought, reflection, and negotiation.
The current changes seem more impulsive and political, with the complete exclusion of any societal debate and discussion. The National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform (NACCR) would do well to understand this example of the “concentration of power” that they erroneously attributed to an American President and not to a Westminster-Whitehall Prime Minister.
There is no way that any American president could simply change the Great Seal of the United States with the snap of a finger and procure the services of a designer at short notice, purportedly have it ready in a matter of weeks, and then take it to Parliament for debate on a party-line vote in an election year, and the population sits idly by and allows it to happen.
Of course, if we are talking about paper cup patriotism, then it really would not matter what symbol one person determines should be our new identity. The fact that civil society really does not care about national identity tells a deeper story.
Where are all of these civil society groups who are normally very vocal about most things but have decided to give this significant change a miss? Is it that they have succumbed to the identity politics being played out here because of a fear of challenging the Columbus aspect of our historical evolution, or do they simply agree after six decades of independence? If that is the case, then we can understand why there is so little enthusiasm to discuss constitutional reform and all that that entails.
Does it really matter any more? Even the Father of the Nation, Dr Eric Williams, has been swept up in this prime ministerial finger snap and cancelled in a puff of smoke and replaced with stunning societal silence.
This Republic Day, there is a lot to digest because of what is coming this election year. Identity politics has arrived, and civil society has been stunned into silence. The flip side of that absence of enthusiasm also explains why other institutional debates have so little societal input, like the CCJ replacing the Privy Council.
It does not matter. However, that particular change cannot be accomplished by a snap of the prime ministerial finger.
Dr Hamid Ghany is Professor of Constitutional Affairs and Parliamentary Studies at the University of the West Indies (UWI). He was also appointed an honorary professor of the UWI upon his retirement in October 2021. He continues his research and publications and also does some teaching at the UWI.