What is it that fired the desire for political independence from the British, not only in Trinidad and Tobago and the English-speaking Caribbean but in the former colonies of Great Britain, spread through Africa, India and elsewhere?
In its essence, and going back to the 18th century in the United States of America, leaders and their peoples wanted the “freedom” to manage their own affairs; the long history of discontent can be traced back to British Mercantilism exacted upon its colonies through the monopoly of trade and the capture of the resources of occupied territories.
Political independence was a mechanism to end capture and occupation, dehumanisation, exploitation, and brutal suppression and to fulfil the desire of nationalists everywhere to retake the resources of their countries for use by the native peoples.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the patriotic labour leaders at the turn into the 20th century and the gathering of momentum into the 1930s through Butler and Cipriani and the emergence of intellectuals such as CLR James and the Beacon group agitating for some form of self government. Also, the constitutionalists, Patrick Solomon, the United Front and the West Indian National party began in the 1940s shaping the frame for constitutional reform.
The arrival of Dr Eric Williams, the scholar against British slavery and economic exploitation, struck out first with his West Indian colleagues to create the Federation through which regional states would gain political independence from Britain. The conclusion then, as it has been over the decades since, is that these tiny states need to aggregate their resources, political, economic and social to gain recognition in an emerging world of regional and ideological blocs.
After the disaster of the failed Federation (1958-1962) both Jamaica and T&T hustled to gain their independence. Amongst the intentions and ambitions of Premier Williams as articulated to his People’s National Movement, was the construction of a political democracy, national economic development and his rally to the national community for cohesion, pride and responsibility: “There can be no Mother India...no Mother Africa…no Mother England…no dual loyalties...The only Mother we recognise is Mother Trinidad and Tobago, and Mother cannot discriminate between her children.”
The major concerns of the opposition Democratic Labour Party, as expressed inside and outside of the Marlborough House Conference/negotiations focused on the requirement for an independent judiciary, the rights and freedoms of all, a democratically constituted Parliament and protection from the arbitrary exercise of power. Additionally, Opposition Leader Dr Rudranath Capildeo wanted a general election before the granting of independence; he got his wish.
Behind the purpose for the above introduction (even though tightly abbreviated) is to lay down a basis to make a judgment 60 years after as to whether or not we the citizens, the governments, the opposition parties, the constitutionalists, the institutions, the business community, the political parties et al have achieved in whole or part the objectives as grandly stated in the quest for independence.
A functioning and free electoral system to democratically elect a government with five-year renewals has demonstrably been achieved, and this is notwithstanding the occasional grumblings of leaders and their parties having lost elections. The indisputable fact is that the major political parties, inclusive of several coalitions have been freely voted in and out of office.
So exercised has been the right to form and organise political parties that calypsonian, Relator, in rhyme and rhythm has observed: “We have too much party here in La Trinity, the place too small and it ent making sense at all.”
The movement away from the British crown through the shift to Republicanism, 14 years after independence, is a further indication that British colonial rule has been rejected, at least at the level of the constitution of the State.
Fact is that the Republican Constitution, fashioned by Prime Minister Williams, he having thrown out the Wooding draft which the Commission gave shape to after widespread consultation and discussion, has become seriously dysfunctional, unable to serve the national interest and allow for the modernisation and representative nature of the political entity–the State.
Common is the view among the said political parties, government and opposition, independent political scientists, media commentators et al is that major constitutional reform, even root and branch transformation, is required if the political constructs are to be representative of and fully functional in the interest of the national community.
Two political parties in their turn in office (PNM and National Alliance for Reconstruction) established independent commissions to at least recommend the changes required. The reports have been ignored. The PNM and UNC have also thrown together clearly partisan committees which have recommended constitutional changes that have been patently self-serving; therefore, unacceptable to those outside of the government of the day.
The major outcomes of this failure to fashion a constitution to meet the needs of the political organisation of the State and for meaningful participation by citizens have been observable deficiencies and ineffectiveness of the State in aspects of its organisation and functioning.
The fault line of the failure is the distrust of the ethnically-based political parties to effect constitutional change.
To be continued.