We the people – constitutional reform and the Coat of Arms

Dr Terrence Farrell provided crucial context to the recent announcement by the Prime Minister regarding changes to the national Coat of Arms. He clarified that this was not a recommendation from the Constitution Reform Committee in an interview on Altos. Dr Farrell is a prominent figure in Trinidad and Tobago, known for his expertise in economics and involvement in public policy.

He clarified that the Constitution Reform Committee did not recommend changing the national Coat of Arms or other symbols. Instead, the committee’s proposal was to append the existing national symbols, including the anthem, to the Constitution.

He explained that this approach is used in some other countries, such as Guyana, where national symbols are included as an addendum to the constitution but are not considered part of the constitutional law itself. This method allows for the recognition of these important national elements within the constitutional document while maintaining a distinction between core constitutional provisions and symbolic national representations.

Addressing concerns about the potential cost of changing national symbols, Dr Farrell offered two perspectives.

“Symbolism in any society is important. The symbols that we have which tell us who we are and what we stand for are indeed very important. So, the question is, do you put a price tag on that? And one can argue that any price is worth paying for the right kind of symbols.”

Dr Farrell then pointed out that changes could be implemented over time to mitigate immediate financial impact. “The Central Bank does not have to change all of the currency at the same time. As notes expire, they will then introduce new notes, whatever new design we come up with, and that’s how it will be done.”

He drew a parallel to the transition from Trinidad and Tobago passports to CARICOM passports, emphasising that such changes can be made gradually as documents expire.

Connecting constitutional reform to everyday issues 

Dr Farrell stressed the relevance of constitutional reform to everyday concerns like healthcare and infrastructure. He identified a common root cause for many societal problems: “A lack of accountability. That is to say that the people who are responsible for doing these things and delivering these things to the required standard are not being held accountable for their performance.”

Emphasising that a key focus of the committee was addressing accountability within the Constitution, he explained that the committee believed it was crucial for the Constitution to establish clear mechanisms for holding public officials accountable.

This accountability would apply to all constitutional office holders, including the President, Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, the Director of Public Prosecutions, members of various service commissions, judges, and the entire judiciary.

Two specific areas of accountability that the committee deemed essential were: integrity and performance. The proposed constitutional reforms would aim to ensure that these high-ranking officials maintain ethical standards in their conduct and also meet expected levels of job performance.

The committee proposed several measures to improve accountability:

• Elaborating responsibilities of parliamentarians: “We have elaborated what the parliamentarians are responsible for.”

• Recommending full-time status for parliamentarians: “Parliamentarians need to be people who are full time in their jobs.”

• Expanding parliament: “We have recommended expanding the parliament to, I think, about 59 parliamentarians.”

• Limiting Cabinet size: “Our recommendation is that you can only take eight members from the House who went to the Cabinet and that the Cabinet itself will be limited to 18.”

• Enhancing the President’s role: “We’ve also suggested a responsibility, enhanced responsibility for the President, particularly when it comes to holding constitutional office holders to account.”

Clarifying roles and responsibilities 

Dr Farrell noted the need to clearly define the roles of ministers and permanent secretaries. He explained, “If you look at the current constitution, what you see are the gaps, and there’s a big gap in terms of defining the role of the minister and the role of the permanent secretary.”

He suggested implementing a “cabinet manual” similar to those in the UK and New Zealand, which would “detail the roles and responsibilities of ministers and permanent secretaries, who is responsible for what, who is to be held accountable for what.”

Regarding the involvement of political parties in the reform process, Dr Farrell welcomed their input. He stated, “The publication of the report is in fact intended to stimulate that discussion and debate.”

He encouraged all sectors of society to engage with the recommendations, “applying reason and principle to the recommendations that have been made and to make their own.”

Key recommendations 

When asked about his personal priority recommendations, he highlighted two:

A revised preamble: “We have recommended a revised preamble, and we think that the preamble that we put forward there really talks about our values as a society and so on. What is our identity?”

Recommendations on accountability: “The recommendations around the questions of accountability are in fact critical to the resolution of many of the problems that we have, including crime and so on and so forth that we are seeing healthcare, education system and so on, holding office holders to account from the top and then coming all the way down to the constable, to the teacher in the classroom, to holding people to account for integrity and for performance.”

Dr Farrell explained the title of the document, We the People, saying, “As a Republic, the people have to appreciate that it is the people who are in charge. It is not the parliament.”

He underscored that the Constitution comes from the people and should reflect their desires: “We are a system in which the constitution is supreme, and the constitution comes from the people and therefore the people can say to the parliament, this is what we want to see in a constitution and hopefully that that is going to happen.”

Assisted generation using Claude.ai