The views of the citizens of Grenada on the experience and evaluation of democracy, governance and development in the State, since obtaining Sovereign Independence on 7th February 1974, would vary widely.
The citizens encompass the born common-man with increasing numbers of the poor and vulnerable at one end of the spread, and the foreign wealthy-elite with increasing numbers of the holders of Citizenship By Investment at the next extreme.
Although it may be regarded that all citizens are partakers and stakeholders at various levels and bearings in the conditions and achievements of the nation, the political system adopted and practised as well as the morality and attitude of the administrators of this system are the leading determining factors for the overall prosperity, progress and peace.
The political system is premised on the Grenada Constitution Order 1973, dated on 19th December 1973 and effected on 7th February 1974 when the Independence was granted by the British Government.
As generally should be the case, the fundamental intent of this national constitution is to reflect the identity, ideals and interests of the indigenous citizens and thus providing for a framework for accountable governance in respecting and representing the citizens without fear or favour and affection or ill-will.
Whilst understanding the ‘legal ceremony’ executed by Britain/United Kingdom (UK) in granting the independence, ‘confusing questions’ arise and linger from the absence of a similar fitting requirement by Grenada in accepting and enacting its Independence Constitution.
In fact, the present constitution which is branded as the Supreme (‘sacred’) legal instrument of the nation, is virtually an Imperial Order-In-Council of The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, and thus implying it was handed-over and not officially debated, endorsed and patriated by Grenada.
Furthermore, none of the pertinent documents, the Grenada Termination of Association Order 1973 and Grenada Constitution Order 1973, has any stamp of Grenada or signature of a State-official to signal or to underscore the authority of the Grenadian people.
Despite the professional presentations by constitutional lawyer and former Attorney-General and Speaker of Parliament, Dr. Lawrence A. Joseph, to clarify and put to rest the acute concerns, grey areas still exist.
In his February 2017 public article, “Was Grenada’s Constitution Properly Patriated?”, Dr. Joseph concludes, “it is undeniable that over the last 43 years of Grenada’s Independence, Grenadians accepted the Constitution as their own … Grenada’s Constitution was properly patriated and remains valid”.
This standpoint was accentuated in another article appearing in the Grenada Informer newspaper of Friday, February 4th, 2022, “Does Grenada’s Independence Constitution Have Legitimacy?”
Joseph additionally confesses that there seems to be no rational explanation why Independence Acts were not enacted for Grenada and the other territories of the Windward and Leeward islands (once Associated States of the UK), but that new constitutions were enacted on their behalf by the UK’s government.
He then postulates, most likely applying legal and political knowledge, that as the various states have been following the constitutional provisions over a long period of time, including having general elections held and upheld, then the populations have endorsed those constitutions making them acquire legitimacy over time.
The initial phase of the striking controversy and contempt about the circumstance and conduct by which Independence was declared for Grenada in particular, is not limited to the apprehension and discontent of the citizens when the move for ‘complete self-government’ was mooted by Premier Eric M. Gairy around 1972.
A level of ‘conspiracy and compromise’ with the process was also apparently felt by some individuals who were actively involved in formulating and reviewing the main pertinent documents (1973 Orders) at the various sessions held in the UK.
Despite, do the results of the 28 February 1972 general elections with approximately 58 % valid votes for Gairy, register a ‘passed referendum’ for Independence, consistent with Schedule 2 (“Procedure for Terminating Status of Association”) of West Indies Act 1967?
With reference to the British Hansard, the body of the debate on 17th December 1973 for the Draft Grenada Termination of Association Order 1973 to be approved by the House of Lords was centered on an Amendment to this Draft Order moved by noble Lord Shepherd, contending the irregular application of section 10 (“Provisions for terminating status of association”) of the West Indies Act 1967 governing those Associated States of the UK.
Moreover, Bernard Coard, former lecturer at the University of the West Indies and executive member of the New Jewel Movement (NJM), and who was an Opposition Delegate to the London Constitutional Conference on the Draft Grenada Constitution Order 1973, writing on “The Fight Over Grenada’s Independence Constitution” in his book, “SKYRED: A Tale Of Two Revolutions”, highlights that before the Conference had begun, Gairy contacted the British demanding his (Coard) removal from the delegation and that on the opening day Lord Balmiel informed the May 14 -18, 1973 Conference that after consultations with the Grenada Government, it was decided that he (Coard) could not participate as a delegate but only as an adviser to Herbert Blaize, who was the Opposition Leader in Grenada.
The resultant shocking walk out by the Opposition Delegation led by Blaize forced the British Government to reverse promptly its attempt to silence Coard from being directly involved in the session.
According to founding member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and former Prime Minister, deceased historian and economist George Ignatius Brizan, in his book “Grenada Island of Conflict”; the 1974 Independence Constitution facilitated the final emergence of Gairy as a dictator.
Indeed, this was anticipated and feared by the Grenadian people and the official discussants at the UK’s sessions on both Orders, especially when considering the political atrocities and turbulences being experiencing prior to the independence and with the setup on 6th December 1973 of the Duffus Enquiry on general breakdown of law and order.
Unfortunately, the government-authority of Gairy’s Grenada United Labour Party (GULP) continued to be abused, including threats to and crippling of oppositions, or this may have even been heightened with new strategies, after Independence was secured. Infuriated citizens seeking political change spurred the overthrow of the GULP government on 13 March 1979 by the socialist NJM party and the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) led by Maurice Bishop was established.
The PRG swiftly set aside the Constitution by its People’s Law No. 1, but was self-destructed and completely collapsed by 25 October 1983 failing to deliver a People’s Constitution, democratic elections and restored State pensions.
What happened on 25 October 1983 to restore democratic constitutional rule, resulted from a rescue mission executed by a coalition of military forces led by the United States of America.
In recognising that the representative in Grenada of The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon, was not disturbed by the PRG’s reign, it could be argued that this external intervention/invasion for the Queen’s ‘camouflaged subject’ had the blessings of the UK’s government.
Relying on and applying the executive role of Her Majesty which is reserved in the national constitution, Sir Paul initiated the return to the required holding of general elections with the first on 3rd December 1984, and to the full extent of the Constitution culminating with the 19 July 1991 assenting of the Constitutional Judicature (Restoration) Act 1991.
Instructively, during the gradual or piecemeal reinstatement of the Constitution, an extensive review process with a view for its improvements, was commissioned having Sir Fred Phillips as the chair in February 1985, by the elected 1984 New National Party (NNP)-government of Herbert Blaize.
The uncertainty about the status of the Constitution is compounded, when the citizens are not aware of any changes to it nor of any explanation and/or any objection on a document purported as a ‘new amended’ Constitution; “Grenada’s Constitution of 1973, Reinstated in 1991, with Amendments through 1992”.
A second Constitution Review Commission chaired by The Hon Justice Nicholas Liverpool was installed in February 2002 by Keith Mitchell’s NNP-government; this significantly had a term of reference “to consider, advise and make recommendations respecting the patriation of the Constitution so as to ensure that it draws its authority and validity from an Act of the nation’s Parliament and no longer from the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”
In its Working Document for the interest, enlightenment and participation of the general public in the exercise, the 2002 Commission expresses that the process of Independence should be completed and the Constitutional practice of the State be brought in line with the practices in other Caribbean States, such as Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Belize; and it also instructs that the “patriation of the Constitution” refers to the replacing of the Imperial Order-In-Council by a Constitution which is an enactment of the Parliament of the State of Grenada through the elected representatives of the citizens, after a public referendum is properly held to formally bond with and proclaim it as their own.
The late professor Simeon C. Randolph McIntosh, doctorate in constitutional jurisprudence, who was also associated with the previous two Review Commissions on the Constitution produced a Draft Constitution for Grenada around 2010. Maybe the edition was done with an agreement with the Tillman Thomas NDC-government but it had limited public consultations; as well as, it could have been McIntosh’s independent passionate contribution to nation building.
McIntosh points out that the central idea of modern written constitutionalism realises the people as the sovereign constituent power and the active creators of their constitutional order of a certain political conception.
He asserts on modern constitutionalism, “it is the idea that admits of the original and supreme right of a people to frame their own political constitution; to write for themselves the fundamental laws by which they are to be governed. This is the ultimate ground of political legitimacy. For, a democratic constitution otherwise produced, say, by an occupying army or by a previous imperial power, now departed, will forever bear the taint of illegitimacy, and may never be fully embraced by the people.”
Presently, still to be had are remarks by Sir Joseph on McIntosh’s thesis. Similar to the imposition in February 1974 of a national constitution on the citizens by Premier Gairy in concert with the UK-government amidst great controversies and crises, Prime Minister Mitchell tries to pull-off constitutional referenda in November 2016 and November 2018 in which constitutional lawyer and former Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Dr. Francis Alexis QC, took a lead function with the emphasis on or the predominance of the interests of external entities regarding the Caribbean Court of Justice, without seeking to bring thorough and sensible closure on the ‘substance and sufficiency’ of the local pivotal governance directive.
Also to be mindful of, is the thinking of some parties on the finished restoration of the Independence Constitution in July 1991, on the “no vote” results of both of the ‘limited’ referenda on the Constitution and on the many years of adherence to and of any enjoyment of the applied Constitution with relatively political stability; but which should not negotiate against or negate the need for redressing the outstanding issue for ‘popular officialdom’ on the sovereign expression of the people.
Grenada’s coming general elections should be campaigned and pressured by the citizens as an opportune chance for all political players and enthusiasts, especially the NDC and NNP, to embrace the Cause and Call for not merely hinting about serious and sound constitution reforms but for embarking on ‘founding and fastening’ the Constitution in the psyche of the citizens.
Any failing or ignoring by the politicians to reasonably respond, must be credited as continued despicable lip-services on sovereignty and democracy of real people’s representation.
The only problem is about ‘political will and goodness’, and not even about preparations and logistics; it’s the politicians’ dream to exploit a deficient and dysfunctional system. Besides; separating the issue of reconciliation with reparation by the once colonial rulers such as the UK, from an imperative voting on the pursuit for a true ratified holistic constitution, would be crude hypocrisy.
J.K. Roberts