Discussion on republic move should be taken to the people: lecturer

UNIVERSITY lecturer, Dr. Ronnie Yearwood, says the move to becoming a republic could be one of innovation, great constitutional change, and setting an example for the rest of the Caribbean and the world.

However, he maintains that this matter is complex and it must be taken to the people of the country through meaningful dialogue.

“Because people are assuming that there’s one version of a republic, or there’s one version of this new form of government or new form of constitution that we’re going to have, which involves simply swapping, from what proposals on the government side seems to be, to swap the Queen for a ceremonial president. My view is we can do much better than that. This could be a real moment of innovation, this could be a moment of great constitutional change. This could be an example for the rest of the Caribbean, for the rest of other countries in the world, on how to do this process, how to engage with people.”

He stressed that this is the moment for a constitutional convention. “This is the moment we get Barbadians... We can sit down and hammer out a new constitution to say this Constitution comes from ‘we the people’, not we the parliament. So if you’re talking about symbolism, and claiming ownership of who we are and the Constitution, let us actually do it. It’s kind of counterproductive and it’s ironic that persons are talking about ‘this is the moment to reclaim the Constitution, this is the moment to engage and become this new nation’, but at the same point, you’re leaving out the people.

“So I don’t understand what reclamation and what new engagement and what new process and identity is emerging, if you have not engaged the very people that are supposed to constitute this identity.”

The political scientist challenged that arguments citing the Forde and Cox Commissions on Barbados becoming a republic are misplaced.

“We understand those Commissions took place, but if you’re going to come to make the decision on who the Head of State should be and how that process should work, well, then I want to be part of that process. I want to be part of the entire process of the Constitution... If you’re amending it, we’re going the whole way. We’re innovating. We’re going to do something that is big, something that says, ‘this is Barbados, this is who we are.’ And this is our document to say, ‘this is what we’re going to, where we’re going in the future.’

“The reality is, this is where the ‘we the people’ come in and we shouldn’t take for granted that people want [a say] in this and it is not up to Government not to want individuals to make a decision on something this fundamental. To tell me we are just going to have a ceremonial president, I may not want a ceremonial president, I may want a different form of president. We’re not having the opportunity... And that is the fundamental issue here.

Dr. Yearwood highlighted the fact that the current conversation is coming in response to comments made by Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley at the end of a recently made speech.

“And that in my mind is not the way to engage in this process. There should have been a published paper or published document on the Government’s position, setting out clearly what the Government intends to do. So that’s my point. To be honest, this is conjecture.

“...If you really want to take this process seriously. And you’re being serious about the process. As I said, you want to engage with the people who have been part of this process, it should be clearly set out.”

Saying that this is why the debate so far is limited, he reiterated that the debate must go to the broader changes that the people want.

“...So that when we come out of this process and have this new republic constitution or this new constitution, it envisages what the new Barbadian state and society will look like. At the moment, the process that the Government seems to be engaged in is quite illogical and backwards.”

He dismissed the view that the people should be involved in some aspects, but not others. “That is not how our constitutional change should happen. That is not how you engage with the Constitution. Because from that moment, you have actually tarred the concept of Republic and the new state that’s supposed to emerge from the Republic, because you’ve created people who feel alienated that they weren’t part of that first decision.” (JH)