Constitutional reform rush job

TREVOR SUDAMA

I HAD predicted early this year that the current constitutional reform exercise would produce very little by way of serious recommendations for meaningful change of the Constitution. I questioned the specific qualifications of members of the advisory committee for this exercise and the perception of their independence.

For example, in the same breath that he reminded the country that former speaker Barendra Sinanan was chairman of the committee, Prime Minister Rowley announced that it was neutral. Sinanan, as we all know, is a senior member of the PNM, was the party’s Member of Parliament for San Fernando West and was successfully proposed by the party to be Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I am surprised, or should I be, that Dr Terrence Farrell lent his name to this exercise which could not conceivably produce much of significance given his experience with the Economic Development Advisory Board.

The headlines in the press of August 19 proclaimed that a change in the coat of arms was of paramount concern to the PNM despite the current huge dysfunctionalities in government and governance. It was expected that the PNM’s special convention would reject a system of proportional representation for membership of the House of Representatives as it is still seen as a dagger through its heart.

The recommendation for a two-term limit on the prime minister’s tenure in office would, not surprisingly, be dismissed because it would curtail prime ministerial power and electoral advantage.

The other recommendation relating to the functioning of the DPP’s office, service commissions, the public service, the appointment of commissioner of police and the determination of the country’s final Court of Appeal are, in the scheme of things, of secondary importance.

Overlooked is an ongoing issue of a lack of accountability by public and private health institutions which affect a large number of people. There is seething dissatisfaction with patient experiences and healthcare outcomes which sometimes end in fatalities. There are allegations of negligence, error of omissions and commissions, unethical behaviour, arbitrary decisions and paucity of information. An additional grievance with respect to private health institutions is the alleged inflated and exorbitant costs for patient care and procedures.

In the circumstances, the committee may have considered a recommendation for a provision in the Constitution of a medical ombudsman to address the above matters. In mid-April this year, in a letter to the press, I made such a proposal. Recently (16/8/24) the editorial of the Trinidad Guardian made a similar recommendation, no doubt following the lead of my proposal.

Currently, the Constitution provides for the Office of Ombudsman which is mandated merely to deal with complaints relating to the operations of public service departments. There is little doubt that the need for a medical ombudsman is of much greater urgency.

The advisory committee’s report states that the people feel excluded from the process of government and demand greater participation and control.

It must be naive to think that this demand could even be minimally met by fixed dates for elections, referendums and a wider pool of participants for electing a president with little power. Not to mention the vague statement of “preparing local government for greater responsibility” without addressing the question of the devolution of specific powers, an equitable and acceptable method of allocating funds from central government and mechanisms of oversight and accountability.

The report stated that citizens want to see expanded sets of economic, social and cultural rights without informing us through what proposed institutions in the Constitution could these effectively be realised.

The current Constitution states that the people of TT “respect the principles of social justice and therefore believe that the operation of the economic system should result in the material resources of the community being so distributed as to subserve the common good and...that there should be adequate means of livelihood for all.”

Without constitutionally entrenched institutions designed to give effect to this belief, it remains merely an empty hope and an elusive aspiration, particularly in a society with entrenched political divisions based on racial affiliations and a system in which the spoils of political office are granted on a winner-take-all basis.

In the circumstances there is the real consequence of discrimination against and exclusion of the losers from an equitable benefit from public resources. The committee’s report never acknowledged this political and electoral reality, let alone suggesting constitutional mechanisms for addressing gross disparity and inequity in the distribution of public resources and the enjoyment of the benefits from same.

My own proffered solution for a constitutional provision to address the issue of glaringly inequitable distribution of public resources would be outlined in a subsequent and final article on this subject.