Submission 24

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 2:24 PM
To: ConstitutionalReform
Subject: SBARBADOS-THE QUEEN , OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR CONSTITUTION

BARBADOS: THE QUEEN, OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR CONSTITUTION

A Bajan should be the head of our nation, despite the Queen being Barbados’ “Head of State” since her ascendancy to the Throne in 1952 with Barbados as part of the British Empire.

At Independence in 1966, Queen Elizabeth’s position as Head of State, continued seamlessly because Barbados remained one of her realms, but, in fact, while she was a titular Head of State, real power and authority was vested in the Prime Minister.

The Queen’s ceremonial role in Barbados, was performed by a Governor-General, nominated by the government of Barbados, until the decision was made, without a referendum, that Barbados should become a Republic with a non-Executive President. The non-Executive President, Dame Sandra Mason, who, rather incongruously, retains the title of “Dame” bestowed upon her by Elizabeth II, as Queen of Barbados, also performs a ceremonial role.

Surely, if the powers that be were determined to cut all links to the former British Empire, including the Crown, they should also have insisted that our own freshly minted Head of State should ditch the title from what is now a foreign Sovereign. Be that, as it may, in reality, we exchanged one titular Head of State for another.

LOST OPPORTUNITY?

This seems to be a lost opportunity. Barbados would have saved a great deal of money by opting for an executive President, who would combine the functions of Head of State and Head of Government. Without any disrespect to our current non-Executive President, we really do not need the expense of a non-executive President.

Provided we had put constitutional safeguards on an Executive President, such as term limits and parliamentary oversight of the exercise of power with clear penalties for abuse, we would have reduced all our costs associated with having an unnecessary non-executive President, in whose appointment the people had no say, just as we had no influence over the choice of the former Monarch.

The President’s residence (formerly occupied by Governors General) could be used for the betterment of the people of Barbados. For instance, it could be turned into a tourism attraction, complete with a museum.

EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL

Everything is political. Therefore, there is no such thing as a post “above the fray”, including the post of non-Executive President.

I used to think that the US Supreme Court judges were so well qualified and experienced that they too were “above the fray”, even though they are appointed by a US President who, usually, selects a person sympathetic to the views of his political party. History has now shown that their political connections, loyalties and debt are greater influences on their thinking than the common good of all society.

Does anyone really believe that, if a conflict arose between a Prime Minister and the President of Barbados, the President would prevail? George Orwell wrote “in our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia”.

The way to best ensure that a Head of Government is kept within the boundaries of decency, and respect of the laws, is to have a strong constitution that is enforceable. This is a better option than relying on a single person who appears to be “above the fray”. I firmly believe that a Head of Government, especially one that has authoritarian tendencies, would relish negotiating with a titular and appointed President, than to face institutional rules and laws that are enshrined in the Constitution.

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE KEY

Hopefully Barbados will still have the time to address the matter of our establishing a Constitution which reflects the safeguards demanded by the entire society. Among a few examples of things that need to be addressed are:

1. Should there be more parliamentary oversight and compulsory accountability of the office of Head of Government?

2. Should the holder of the post of Head of Government have term limits?

3. Should snap elections be stopped so that the next election date is known with a set date?

4. Will the Public Sector be held more accountable, especially as Civil Servants salaries are over $1 billion per year?

5. How can we enshrine in the constitution that transparent action be taken on reports of the Auditor General on pain of removal from office of the finance minister and ministry officials?

6. What should be the powers of the Head of Government?

7. What changes should be made to our Senate, taking into consideration that it presently operates as a rubber stamp for the ruling government?

8. What type of Republic should Bajans select?

9. Should there be a maximum limit of ministers?

Of course, the time to have changed the constitution comprehensively was before the country became a Republic. Now that a group of politicians have already foisted their will on the nation, without meaningful discussion, they have already cast the mould. To ensure our own democracy in the future, it is the people that must step forward and demand it, or face living with the consequences, however unpalatable they might become.

There are many lessons from which we can learn, and which we should apply, in order to safeguard democracy, the rule of law and the common will of our people.