The Last Word

Whose constitution is it anyway they are talking about?

by Barrie Quappe
Host/producer for "Cayman Crosstalk with Barrie Quappe" on Rooster 101.9FM

Friday, February 6, 2004

This week we saw the Constitutional talks in a proverbial "tug of war" between our Government representative and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). 

The UDP issued a public statement saying: "After consultation with party colleagues and much soul searching the decision has been taken to discontinue constitutional talks at this time and proceed with elections under the current system." 

The very next morning the FCO issued a statement: "The British Government hopes the UDP will reconsider its decision not to participate further in the constitutional review process before the November 2004 elections and that talks can be re-scheduled, in order that agreement can be reached on a Constitution which has widespread support throughout the Cayman Islands and is acceptable to the British Government."

So, our leaders (albeit just one of the two political parties) say we need more time and the UK says no, reconsider and re-schedule? 

Whose constitution is it anyway? If representatives of the people of the Cayman Islands have stated that recent pressing issues such as the EU tax savings directive and the Parmalat debacle are taking up important time, then surely more time should be given to ensure that a constitutional document has the confidence and the support of the majority of the people. 

A group of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were on the show this week and they all expressed initial relief that they would have more time to "educate" and consider constitutional changes. 

That was short-lived. In an earlier article, I gave a definition of democracy as follows according to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.

How can talks of our constitution proceed without "consent of the majority and that they conform to the principles of equality"? I go back to my original question, that is, whose constitution is it anyway?

Contact Barrie Quappe “Newstalk” radio show, Rooster 101.9FM. E-mail barriequappe@hurleysgroup.com  

Back...