#BTColumn – Whither Barbados: The Republic?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by this author are their own and do not represent the official position of the Barbados Today Inc.

by Dr Ronnie Yearwood

The column this week is a short version of some points from the Errol Barrow Memorial Lecture hosted by the New York Branch of the Democratic Labour Party, which I delivered a few weeks ago. In the lecture, titled, The Independence Project: A New Vision for Governance, I examined briefly the concept of a Republic and the aims of the Republican Status Transition Advisory Committee.

In this column, I focus on the Republican Status Transition Advisory Committee which I think is ill-constituted for the task, especially if you examine the terms of reference of the Committee, and what appears as a narrow understanding of a Republic.

In fact, there is no single view of a Republic, hence to date we are not sure what form of Republic this Government is pursuing, beyond some hints in the Committee’s terms of reference and also by the Chair of the Committee.

The main role according to the terms of the Committee is to “recommend the constitutional requirements necessary to effect the change [to a Republic] and to recommend the type of Presidency, the powers and tenure of the President, and to determine the ceremonial and legal implications of the Presidential status.”

The Committee is therefore not engaging in changing the Constitution so much as amending the Constitution. These are two different things (as some scholars argue) and it calls into question the purpose of this Committee.

Amending or changing?

Amending keeps intact the Constitution and the systems of government. Whereas changing is requiring an entirely different form and type of Constitution, for example examining the role of government, structure of government, powers of the Prime Minister, and type of electoral system. Therefore, no matter how grandiose the current Government tries to make the Committee sound, none of these things appear to be part of the terms of reference of the Committee.

Further, the Chair of the Committee confirmed a decision has already been made about Barbados being a Republic and I can only assume its form from the terms of reference which mention a ‘ceremonial Presidency.’ The Chair of the Committee said: “We are not making a decision.

The decision has been made already. Over the years several Prime Ministers have confirmed that this is what they want, but somehow, we never actually made the last step. And the last step is the one that actually brings the constitution home to Barbados so that our Parliament in Barbados would now be responsible for the Constitution by which we are run.”

Two things stand out from this statement. One, I am not sure why Barbadians are being asked to make submissions – a submission to what, and for what purpose if the decision appears already made. Two, patriating or bringing the Constitution ‘home’ from the UK, that is, making it an act of the Barbados Parliament, does not affect Barbados being responsible for the Barbados Constitution.

We have been responsible for the Constitution since 1966 and in fact some scholars would argue that Barbados has been a republic since then.

The point is that the British Monarchy cannot be appropriated to Barbados as it is essentially the British Monarchy, and though symbols of the Monarchy exist in our systems, the Monarchy is not one of the central institutions in the Barbados Constitution. As McIntosh argues, the idea that Barbados is a Constitutional Monarchy is a “noble lie”.

The statements from the Chair show that the Chair is a bit pedestrian on these matters. The Chair in that statement not only confirmed the view that the Committee is ill-suited to its task but that Chair of the Committee may not understand the task.

The Committee from its terms of reference does not strike me as a wide-ranging constitutional reform committee, but instead it seems more of a committee to make a few suggestions for amendments regarding symbolic points such as patriating the Constitution from an act of the UK Parliament to one of our parliament, and replacing one ceremonial Head of State with another ceremonial Head of State.

Republic

The real issue is not about becoming a Republic or not a Republic, or patriation or not, if we operate on the premise that we already control our Constitution and there is nothing that can invalidate that premise.

One broad view of a Republic is that it simply means limited government, within the context of rule of law. Basically, the people are the true power and government functions within the law, and that no one is above
the law.

The real issue is about the relationship between us, as The People and Our Government. This requires full ventilation. Are we going to maintain our current structure of government or do we do something new? Is this a chance to limit the powers of the office of the Prime Minister?

Do we require, both, an executive head of government (the Prime Minister) and ceremonial head of state (the Governor-General)? Do we want to change the voting system from first past the post to proportional representation? Should we have a referendum to decide any changes to the Constitution including becoming a Republic?

Arguments about simply dusting off the 1998 Forde Commission report miss the point because many conversations around rights, race, creating a meritocratic society have changed since then. When the Forde Commission report was published the internet was barely a thing in Barbados.

Also, the Prime Minister at the time rightly decided that The People needed to be the ones to make the final decision, either via a referendum or a general election where it was raised as a campaign issue. The current Government did not raise becoming a Republic in the last General Election, so where is the mandate for this change, especially when we do not know what the change entails?

Real and Big Change

I would opt for full scale change but that does not appear to be the remit of the Committee if we assess the terms of the Committee or what this Government is pursing.

This could be a real moment for real change of the Constitution and our governance systems, not amending the Constitution and so tinker at the margins, but we have to seize it, and we have to demand it. I think this Government should be sent back to the drawing board on the republic transition committee and told to come again.

The Prime Minister likes to talk about every Barbadian boy or girl aspiring to the high office of Head of State and knowing it is not representative of the Queen. Let us make that aspiration real and not just talk.

Let us have the new President or whatever it is called, if we decide to keep a form of ceremonial head of state, directly elected, so that those boys and girls can aspire to a national office, and not a President formed in the backrooms of the Parliament functioning as an electoral college for choosing a President, likely one of their own political class.

If chosen by electoral college, no so-called ordinary boy or girl will ever likely see the inside of Government House as President, even if only ceremonial, of Barbados.

If the Government is trying to dress up what is a role swap from the Queen to another ceremonial head state, and does not even attempt to democratize the process of how the person is put in office, then that is not only disingenuous to the people of Barbados, its smacks of disrespect to the Constitution and
to The People.

Though I am not sure why we are surprised, the Government did amend the Constitution to make two Senators, purported colleagues of the Prime Minister, Senators when they failed to meet the previous tests of residency in Barbados. Further, with all the seats but one, and full control of the lower and upper house, the Government still cannot pass anti-corruption laws, but it is everyone’s fault but the Government’s own.

We need big discussions and importantly changes surrounding the role and purpose of government and the structure of our political system. Inwstead, we are getting a lot of noise and spectacle from the Government but again, why are we surprised.

Dr Ronnie Yearwood is a lecturer in law, lawyer and social commentator. Email: yearwood.r.r.f@gmail.com