With Kate Sullivan’s revised constitutional and electoral reform recommendations having been considered and responded to we ought now, we are told, to expect a new draft order in council at some point in the future. We have not been told when, but we do know that the mandate of the interim government has now been extended beyond the 2 years initially envisaged and that a new Order in Council is open-ended.
The situation is most unsatisfactory, and I join with my colleague E.J. Saunders in calling on Foreign Office Minister Bellingham to set target dates for the achievement of the objectives he has set out and to give the people of the TCI a clear indication of when they can expect a return to democratically elected government in their homeland.
The question though, that I have been asked constantly is what will the new constitution look like, and what will we do about it if we don’t like it. To answer that question is like looking round the corner, but I will give it my best effort. Although Ms Sullivan says that she took the 2006 Constitution as her starting point, her recommendations suggest that the new constitution will be radically different in significant respects.
It is equally clear to me that we won’t like it and that something will have to be done about it. During Ms Sullivan’s consultations, a clear preference was shown for the 2006 Constitution and despite the lip service she has paid to it, most citizens will find that her recommendations are like the apple that has fallen far from the tree. I must confess a special liking for the 2006 Constitution myself, having played the role I did in bringing it about.
First to the differences, only two of which time and space will allow me to deal with in this statement:
-
Politicians and regular citizens alike will immediately notice the massive claw-back of power and responsibility to the Governor. The 2006 Constitution provided perhaps the greatest measure of local control over domestic affairs that was possible within the context of the overseas territory relationship; we enjoyed virtual internal self-government. The Sullivan recommendations however will set us back decades in terms of the comparative balance between the powers and responsibilities of the Governor and those of the elected government. This is unfortunate and regrettable. Unfortunate because it will represent a failure of UKG’s obligation to move TCI steadily towards self-determination and, looking forward, a denial of the opportunity for local politicians and elected governments to have a hand on the levers of power and to develop a culture of sound and responsible government. The fact of the matter is that the only way to learn to drive the bus is to get behind the wheel! It is unfortunate also because it is so unnecessary. I, like most reasonable people, do not believe there was anything wrong with the 2006 Constitution which relatively minor amendments could not remedy. It was a framework that politicians and citizenry alike had become accustomed to and liked. This must be the first time in history that a constitution was torn up not because it was inadequate but because those charged with administering it were, including the functionaries of those doing the tearing up!
-
The second significant respect in which the new constitution will be different is in the constituency structure. Ms Sullivan proposes 6 Island seats and 9 territory wide seats as opposed to the one man one vote, first past the post, 15 constituency structure of the 2006 Constitution. The mischief this is intended to remedy is TCI’s propensity for “transactional” politics. This is code for buying and selling of votes and the example that was played upon in the Commission of Inquiry hearings was the amount of money spent in South Caicos during the 2007 general election campaign as compared with the number of electors in the two constituencies there. But if that was the problem one would have thought the answer to be campaign finance regulation such as is proposed elsewhere in Ms Sullivan’s recommendations.
The irrationality of it all is demonstrated by the fact that her current constituency structure model creates one constituency that is even smaller than either of the South Caicos constituencies, namely Salt Cay, and leaves intact another, namely Middle Caicos. As to the 9 territory wide seats, the mechanics of it all will be difficult to explain to an electorate that has become accustomed to the sheer simplicity of the one man one vote, first past the post model. The underlying “get used to it” approach just will not do! History proves it – we’ve had variations of these models before and have rejected them as Ms Sullivan herself concedes.
We now move to the question of what do we do with a constitution that we don’t like but are told that we must have. The answer is simple: we consider our options and we chose the best option that is available to us. Three options are broadly available in the circumstances, namely acceptance, negotiation of something better, and independence.
Let’s begin with independence. The case for independence is emotionally and ideologically compelling. Independence is the natural consequence of the internationally recognized right of all peoples to be free to determine their own destiny. Such freedom can only be exercised in the absence of external constraints. Colonialism was consigned to the dustbin of history ages ago and most ordinary Britons would be probably be surprised to learn that their government continues to hold what are in effect “colonies” being masqueraded as “ overseas territories”.
But history is replete with examples to show that, in practice, independence, particularly for small countries with little natural resources, carries with it very real risks of political instability, economic decline and failed statehood. Besides, even in the case of much larger countries, political independence is often diluted by reliance on international financial institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD.
Independence could therefore be prohibitively expensive and ultimately, illusory. As attractive as I find the independence case on emotional and ideological grounds, my considered view is that on a practical level we must spend at least next several years recovering lost ground and preparing purposefully for that eventuality.
The second option is acceptance. We reject this option for the simple reason that no people should be forced to live under a constitution that they didn’t ask for and don’t like, particularly when the constitution they themselves crafted, liked and wanted was snatched away from them through no fault of their own. Such an approach would be wholly contrary to the UK Government’s obligation to respect, and so far as possible, to accommodate the wishes the peoples of the Overseas Territories.
So then we are left with the third option of negotiating something better as being far and away the best option available to us. With God’s help and the support and trust of the people, I intend to lead the Progressive National Party into those negotiations. Clearly there is more than sufficient room for a greater measure of self-rule within the overseas territory frame-work than the Kate Sullivan recommendations promise. I intend to achieve that for the benefit of the people of the TCI.
I am aware that Foreign Office Minister Bellingham has recently said there will be no direct negotiations with political representatives, but with respect, the Minister must be wrong in taking that approach. In a representative democracy there are only two ways of gauging the will of the people on such issues, (a) by direct consultation, i.e. referendum, or (b) by reference to their political leaders. Perhaps Minister Bellingham intends to offer the people of the TCI a referendum on the new constitution. If so, he has my support. If not, then final negotiations with political representatives are inevitable and it would be better for those negotiations to take place before, rather than after, elections under the new constitution.
I end by urging the people of the TCI to take heart, have faith and look to the future with hope. After the darkest night then comes the morning.
Carlos W. Simons QC
15/02/2011
