#BTColumn – Head of state hesitancy

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. Peter Laurie

Do we want a Bajan as our non-executive/ceremonial head of state or not? That is the question. So why are some of us hesitant about such a straightforward move? Let’s examine the issues dispassionately in the interest of educating the public.

The issue at stake is certainly not moving from a monarchy to a republic. That is a red herring. The fact is that Barbados is not and has never been a nonarchy. Barbados was a sugar-producing slave colony of the British. There is no evidence that we ever had a monarch of our own. King Jaja?

Both Barbados and Britain are, from a political science point of view, already republics, which are simply states that are governed by the elected representatives of the people.

The old Monarchy v Republic debate really stems from the 18th century when there was a move by parliaments to curb the powers  of the absolute monarch.

Let’s look at our own historical context. In 1966 Barbados agreed to what was a sensible pragmatic compromise for that time: we would become politically independent but would retain a symbolic link to the colonial power by agreeing that the ceremonial or non-executive Head of State of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth the Second, would remain as our non-executive head of state..

This had historical precedent in the ‘Dominion’ status of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and was done to reassure those members of our community who were nervous about the prospect of becoming independent.

They wondered about the viability of ‘going it alone’ for such a tiny island (this against the background of the failed Federation and the ‘Little Eight’); they were concerned that our legendary stability might be undermined;
and they were worried that independence might entail such a radical break with the past that their future economic prosperity might be endangered.

With the benefit of hindsight, most would agree that that pragmatic compromise worked. Barbados has been a huge success story. The price we paid, however, was that we retained a semi-colonial status in two senses.

First, every other independent nation in the world, except for former colonies of Britain like Barbados, has a citizen of its own as head of state, a matter of national symbolical significance. We thus remain an international anomaly. Just try explaining to a Latin American why the British Queen is still our head of state.

Second, Barbadians have no say whatsoever in choosing who is to be our head of state. This is entirely a matter for the former colonial power since we agreed that whoever is their head would be our head as well. Now I think everyone would agree that Queen Elizabeth has served with grace and distinction but
who knows what her successors might turn out to be like?

Incidentally, as part of that ‘historical compromise’ we also agreed to retain the Privy Council of the UK as our highest Court of Appeal. Then, in 2005, Barbados accepted the appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice. This was an important step in legal decolonisation. By the way, we did that without a referendum.

Simply put, decolonisation is not a one-off act but a continuous process. Similarly, we began a process of cultural decolonisation by appropriating and promoting our long suppressed African heritage.

So now we are logically taking political and constitutional decolonisation a step further by transitioning to having a Barbadian as our non-executive head of state.

Some ask why don’t we have an executive head of state in addition to an executive head of government (the prime minister)? Republics are classified into three different systems: full presidential systems in which the president is both head of state and head of government, e.g. the US, Nigeria, Brazil; semi-presidential, in which executive power is shared between the president and the prime minister, e.g. France, Guyana, Egypt; and parliamentary republics, in which the head of government (i.e. the prime minister) derives her authority directly from the legislature and the non-executive president is a symbolic head of state in a figurehead capacity, e.g. Trinidad and Tobago,
Germany, Singapore.

For Barbados a parliamentary republic makes most sense. Can you imagine having two executive heads of government in Barbados? We would soon be embroiled in turmoil and chaos, shattering our long-held reputation for stable and prudent governance.

The parliamentary system has served us well for the last 55 years. Some have complained that this system, which we inherited from the British, places too much power in the hands of the prime minister. My own view is that Barbados benefits from having a strong prime minister demonstrating strong leadership.

If there are those who worry about possible abuses of power by the holder of that office, then the solution is not to create a new source of countervailing power but to strengthen the functions of parliament and the participation of civil society and citizens at large in the ongoing governance of the country.

It was for this reason that a group of us lobbied a few years ago for the Peoples’ Initiative recommended in the Forde report.

Some also ask why the non-executive president should not be elected in a contested popular election rather than by two-thirds of the House and Senate combined as the Forde Constitutional Commission has recommended?

Do you honestly believe that a popularly elected ceremonial president who has won a hard-fought campaign, however strictly circumscribed her/his constitutional responsibilities were, would not believe she/he had an independent political base and behave accordingly? Instability again.

Besides, we want a head of state that would be above the political fray and who would symbolise the best of the Barbadian nation.

Having a Barbadian as our non-executive Head of State will reinforce in the psyche of every Barbadian the understanding that we are now totally responsible for our own affairs and will symbolise the true coming of age
of the descendants of an enslaved and colonised people.

Two other issues that are raised are

(1) whether we should not have a referendum on the matter, and

(2) whether we should only take this step as part of a wider constitutional review. A referendum is not needed. The issue of a Barbadian head of state was exhaustively discussed by the 1996 Constitution Review Commission, comprising the best of our legal luminaries and other distinguished citizens at the time and chaired by Sir Henry Forde.

After two years of extensive canvassing of public opinion (265 written submissions were made) both among Barbadians at home and abroad, the report was issued in 1998.

Their unanimous recommendation was that Barbados should be a parliamentary republic with the head of state being a non-executive president and the prime minister being the head of government.

They went on to say that “this system was the choice of almost everyone who gave evidence before us on this subject.” They also unanimously recommended that the president be elected by two-thirds of the combined votes of the House and Senate.

To now hold a referendum or even further canvassing of public opinion on this matter, as some advocate, seems to me to be an absolute waste of time and money. The other issue raised is whether we should not settle the matter of the head of state as part of a wider constitutional review.

The problem here is that a wider review would take anywhere from two to five years, and the change of head of state on which the vast majority of Bajans are agreed and that seems to most of us an urgent priority, would get unnecessarily delayed.

There are lots of other matters for constitutional review and possible change. Some examples: strengthening the rights enumerated in the present Constitution; our present ‘first-past-the-post’ system electoral system v. ‘the additional member system’, used by Germany and New Zealand among other countries; bi-cameral v. unicameral legislature; and mechanisms for strengthening the role of civil society and citizens in governance.

It is preferable to first make the change to a Barbadian head of state and then address at greater leisure and with the widest popular participation the other constitutional issues.  Besides, the name of our country would remain what it has always been: Barbados.

Dr. Peter Laurie is a retired permanent secretary and head of the Foreign Service who once served as Barbados’ Ambassador to the United States.