Republic is a Question of The Manner and The Form

It was so interesting to hear the republic debate: "Speculations speculating speculations" on the manner and form of a republic. Interesting also to hear the opinions on whether or not there should be a referendum.

While some may consider speculation a waste of time, one cannot deny that within the speculation debate, public preferences are emerging. However, a document needs to be circulated island wide so the people can study it and meaningfully engage in debate on it.

There are two interconnected twists to the call for a referendum. One is that the call for a referendum may be reactionary on the part of those who feel that there is not sufficient public knowledge and debate on the issue.

The second is that without a proposal on the table about the manner and form that a republic will take in Barbados , there may be genuine concerns to avoid the pitfalls of Guyana and Trinidad .

There is a 90 percent probability that a referendum at this time, without public debate and public input, will fail simply because it will be too easy for detractors to play on the fears of the masses. Plus many of those who would like a republic may still vote against it for fear of the unknown.

This makes a referendum at this point in time non-productive. The resources would be better employed on public education and information programmes as well as wide consultations for input into the manner and form of the republic Barbadians would want.

After that has happened, a vote or referendum on the final document should take place, leaving no-one with any doubt as to what they are voting for. The Government may then find that a call for a referendum may very well become redundant.

Imagine that at a point in time (1789) the USA , whom many consider to be a great nation today, was at these very crossroads. There were those who resisted the new constitution. It was their second attempt at framing a constitution, as the first attempt resulted in weak and ineffective Government.

Historical accounts will attest to the fact that there was extensive debate on the matter, or at least in the circles where it mattered and among those who had the franchise to vote. A series of articles attributed to James Madison appeared in the press and another series of articles appeared from the anti-federalists.

A hot debate ensued between the Federalists who framed the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who were opposing the new constitution. This ended with the Anti-Federalists giving way, after the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights.

A most important point was raised by Sir Frederick Smith about the repatriation of the Barbados Constitution. He advised that we should look to see how Canada moved the status of their constitution from a British Order-in-Council to their own Parliament and follow suit.

However, the Americans took matters into their own hands. They decided that the power of the rulers was derived from those whom they ruled; the citizens. This opposed the British view that sovereignty was placed in the hands of the King by God; a principle called "the Divine Sovereignty of the King".

The Americans placed sovereignty squarely into the hands of the people and today the preamble to the American Constitution begins, "We the People", clearly indicating that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

If any of this holds lessons for us today, it is that any republic should have the input of the people. It should be widely debated, discussed and framed by the people. The people should be satisfied that they will not be exposed to tyrannical, authoritarian or any other type of absolute rule that will trample their rights.

For any Republican arrangement to work there must be clear lines dividing the legislative, executive and judicial branches of Government. Obviously, for there to be strong and effective Government, most will opt to put political/executive power in the hands of the president. However, a system of checks and balances must obtain to ensure that no one branch of the government dominates the others.

One should remember the advice of Thomas Jefferson speaking or writing to James Madison who was the leader of the Framers of the American Constitution and their chief campaigner. Jefferson said to Madison, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest upon inferences."

When all is said and done the reality of this exercise is simple. Not knowing any man, save one disabled, who would put their affairs in the hands of a neighbour, this debate cannot be about whether or not we should have a republic but what form it would take and the manner of Governance.

I quote from an e-mail sent to me in light of the Prime Minister's statement last Saturday, " So we are to have a referendum to determine if we should have a Barbadian as head of state. How would you vote if someone asked you to say whether you should love and honour your parents? Or perhaps whether you should manage your own affairs or let your neighbour do it?"

Referring to a brother who questioned why the Prime Minister would want to turn Barbados into a republic, the e-mail went on, "...He, like some others (Barbadians), is standing at the open door of freedom, unable to venture forth simply because his mind has no concept of anything other than bondage.

"The whole notion of a referendum to determine whether we wish to have a Barbadian as our head of state is rooted in this uncertainty about freedom and an unwholesome comfort with bondage - or tutelage, if we think the word 'bondage' too harsh.

"Bob Marley's exhortation about liberating ourselves from mental slavery is all too pertinent to us at this juncture. I commend his words to my. (brother) and all other Barbadians who are peering from the cage door with uncertain minds: 'Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds...'"

Roosevelt O. King
Secretary General - BANGO
admin@bango.org.bb