#BTColumn- Changing our head of state

The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

I invited a reluctant young Bajan woman to ask me questions about the proposed change of our head of state.This is the transcript.

Q: This won’t take long, right?
A: Absolutely not.

Q: All right (sigh), to start with, what is a republic?
A: A republic is a country that is governed by the elected representatives of the people.

Q: But Barbados is governed by the elected representatives of the people. So aren’t we then a republic?
A: Yes, as is the United Kingdom.

Q: Wait, you got me real confused. If we’re already a republic, what are we proposing to change?
A: We are proposing, in the first instance, to replace our non-executive head of state who is presently a foreigner (Queen Elizabeth II) with a Barbadian. Instead of the British Queen we will now have a Barbadian president.

Q: So, what exactly is a non-executive head of state? And how does that position differ from a head of government?
A: A non-executive head of state is a symbolic leader of a country who has no policy-making role. She is seen as the representative of the nation, expressing national identity, values and aspirations. She performs mainly ceremonial duties. She does, however, have some limited discretionary constitutional powers. Would you like to hear what they are?

Q: No, please.
A: Anyway, the prime minister is the elected head of government who, along with her Cabinet, sets the legislative policy agenda and is in charge of implementing and executing the laws.

Q: So, you’re telling me that we are simply exchanging one non-executive head of state for another. Why? What difference does it make? Besides, most Bajans regard the Governor-General as our head of state.
A: I’m glad you asked that question—

Q: No, you’re not.
A: The difference is twofold.
First, every other country in the world, except for a few former British colonies, has as its head of state someone who is a citizen of their country. They regard this as a matter of national pride since the head of state symbolically represents the nation. So Barbados would be simply joining the rest of the international community in asserting our own national pride. By the way, the G-G is the local representative of the Queen.
Second, right now we have no say in who our head of state is. Queen Elizabeth has been a distinguished head of state but we don’t know what her successors might be like. Suppose one of them turned out to be a royal pain-in-the-ass, sorry, let me rephrase that, a scandalous embarrassment, there would be nothing we could do about it. Because of our semi-colonial status, we are locked into having whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom as our head of state forever and ever.

Q: Okay, but since we have to amend the Constitution to make a Bajan our head of state, why don’t we make any other proposed constitutional changes at the same time?
A: Your question raises several important points—

Q: Oh God, here we go again—
A: Show some respect for your elders, please.
The last Constitutional review conducted between 1996 and 1998, after extensive public consultation, made the unanimous recommendation that we have a Barbadian as our non-executive head of state. The vast majority of Bajans support this recommendation, and it is a relatively simple matter to amend the present Constitution to implement this change. Please note that changing our head of state now does not preclude discussing what kind of role the head of state should have under a future new constitution.
That future constitutional review might be a very complicated and contentious process that might take up to two years—

Q: Two years! You mad or what? Not for my generation.
A: (sigh) First, we would have to decide whether we simply want to amend the present Constitution, which was the product of a negotiation between Barbados and Britain fifty-five years ago, or whether we want to craft our own new Barbadian Constitution that would be the result of discussion exclusively among Barbadians.
If we favour the latter, as I do, then we would have to decide how we go about crafting this new constitution. Do we do it via a specially appointed commission like the previous one, or through a constituent assembly or something else? And once the new Constitution is drafted, do we have a referendum, binding or non-binding? And does parliament approve it, with or without amendments? Do you know how many proposed changes to the Constitution there might likely be?

Q: No, but I’m sure you’ll tell me — at great length.
A. Everything but the kitchen sink. Discussions might revolve around the following:
• The rights (and duties) of citizens (the present rights are somewhat restrictive).
• What kind of electoral system do we want? First-pastthe-post, proportional representation (bad idea), or a mix of the two known as ‘mixed member’?
• What kind of legislature do we want, bi-cameral as at present, or unicameral? • What kind of additional functions might the legislature have (various committee roles)?
• Term limits for the prime minister (bad idea)?
• Should the date of an election rest with the prime minister or should it be fixed by statute (good idea)?
• Should we restrict the size of the Cabinet?
• Do we strengthen the role of the Ombudsman or abolish it?
• Should our Social Partnership be part of our Constitution?
• How do we ensure that integrity in public life, transparency and accountability are reflected in the Constitution?
• How do we ensure greater ongoing public participation in governance?
All this is just the tip of the iceberg if we choose to craft a Barbadian Constitution rather than amend the existing one.
The next two years should be fun.

Q. Fun?! You have me exhausted. I going to sleep and wake up in two years’ time.
A. That did occur to me too.

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