Dear Editor,
Anil Nandlall’s letter in Monday’s SN (titled `APNU+AFC failed completely on constitutional reform’) is another case of the miscomprehension behind the repeated calls for constitutional reform. This miscomprehension fails to accept or understand four truths: (i) that, in effect, constitution reform has continued since 2015, (ii) that much scope exists within the letter and spirit of the already-enshrined 1999/2000 constitutional changes to encompass many of the scattered suggestions for new reforms, (iii) no grassroot or public demand for structural change has been collectively voiced, and (iv) no consensus has emerged, or is soon likely to, among the political parties for scrapping the winner-takes-all system.
This letter briefly expands on the first of these four truths. Since 2015, the coalition government has activated or energized several of the 1999/2000 reforms. These reforms therefore are now doing what they were designed to do: to improve some aspect of our governance. In this sense, the government has continued reforming the constitution in spirit by moving matters from words to action. Examples include: (i) the passage of local government legislation, the establishment of the Local Government Commission, and the running of two local government elections; (ii) measures to increase the autonomy of constitutional and statutory bodies; and (iii) measures to enhance public accountability and transparency through, for example, the re-establishment of the Integrity Commission, the activation of the Public Procurement Commission, and the measures to activate the Natural Resources Fund for the management of oil revenues.
All these and other government actions since 2015 readily resonate with the aspirational and instructional language of the constitutional reforms of 1999/2000. For instance, the revolutionary changes to our local government system reflect Article 13 of our constitution, which reads “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affects their well-being.”
So, the calls for more constitutional reform, even those that are well-intentioned, must acknowledge the four truths mentioned above. Otherwise, the process would be adrift of reality and be far less impactful than it could be.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
