Historian says no to ‘President now, constitution later’

With a mere three months to go before Barbados is set to become a republic, members of a Government-appointed committee leading the transition are now divided over the precise way forward, Barbados TODAY has learned.

And it appears Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s decision to proceed with appointing a non-executive president, ending almost 400-year ties to the British Crown, with a promise to introduce a new constitution afterwards is not sitting well with prominent advisors to the process.

The 10-member Republican Status Transition Advisory Committee (RSTAC), a sub-committee that is responsible for the legal aspects of the process and a blue-ribbon panel of three prominent Barbadians who had been invited by the main committee to add their expertise are all caught in a procedural dispute, sources have confirmed.

It is understood that the main bones of contention are the Government’s decision to transition to republican status first and amend the rest of the constitution afterwards and also a “rush” to have the new form of government in place by November 30, this year.

Some members are reportedly calling for a re-examination of the entire process that involves replacing Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State with a native president.

“There is no constitutional document. They have not yet signed off on a constitutional document. They can’t go ahead without having a constitutional change,” a source close to the process told Barbados TODAY.

“A number of people are concerned about the indecent haste at which they are proceeding without a proper legal foundation in place.”

A further fracture has emerged among the groups advising on republican government with one of the three members of the blue-ribbon external group expressing concern that the Mottley administration is not going about the transition in the right way.

Historian Sir Woodville Marshall, professor emeritus of University of the West Indies, told Barbados TODAY: “This is an occasion for public education. The leader of government should not just be announcing this thing, but she should really be saying to the people of Barbados, ‘I know you might have some reservations, so let’s understand something’, and get her colleagues…and there are lots of other people in the community who would be prepared to join in that process of public education.

“It is not entirely logical to get the Barbadian Head of State before you change the constitution. In other words, you should invert the process…change the constitution and the result of the change is that you would have a Barbadian Head of State. I heard the Prime Minister, for example, say, ‘we will be a republic and have a Barbadian Head of State on the 30 November and then we will do the constitutional changes’. That should not be the way, it should be the reverse.”

Sir Woodville, who had been calling for a republican form of government, said that on approval of what the new constitution would be, the draft would then be circulated, debated publicly and in Parliament before the installation of the Head of State.

“The process would then in fact be approved, by which you would have a Barbadian Head of State and then you move,” the historian said. “To me, that is more the logic…and, more than the logic, that is the democratic way of doing it.”

On May 31, days after the establishment of the RSTAC, coordinator of the external group, retired senior civil servant Ian Archer actually submitted a series of proposals and recommendations to the chair of the committee, Dr Marion Williams, after he and his colleagues appeared before it.

Stating that the recommendations were for the urgent consideration of the committee, the group which also comprised retired diplomat Peter Laurie suggested t  should not be a total revision of the Constitution at this time.

In a document obtained by Barbados TODAY, the three-member group said: “We are of the opinion that in order to ensure that the necessary amendments are passed by Parliament to provide that, by 30 November, 2021, the Head of State will be a citizen of Barbados who resides in Barbados, then only those amendments which are necessary to institute such a change should be considered by Parliament at the present time. Further constitutional amendments may be considered by Parliament after November 2021.”

Another recommendation would include in the amendments a provision stipulating that any reference in the Constitution to Queen Elizabeth II, or to the Queen or to the Governor General must be construed as a reference to the President.

“We do not think it is necessary or desirable to change the name of the country to The Republic of Barbados or to the Commonwealth of Barbados or to anything else. Let the name of the country remain simply Barbados,” stated the external group.

emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb