I am not in favour of a 
referendum to approve a new Constitution. While we are dealing with constituencies and elections, I should return to the question of a referendum. I have previously explained why it will not, in my opinion, be a good idea to hold a referendum to approve any new Constitution.
One, history shows that, in the West Indies, people vote according to how they feel about the government. If they approve of how the government is functioning, they vote yes. If they disapprove of government’s conduct, they vote no.
Secondly, a Constitution is too complicated for a referendum. You may approve of most of the provisions, but object to one or two. How do you show your concerns in a referendum? It is not sensible to hold a referendum on a Constitution.
It is preferable to hold a series of educational and public events to inform the public about the issues, and to get their feedback. The challenge is to reflect the opinions of the people in the subsequent draft Constitution. That is what the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission has already done in its 2006 Report to the government following its consultations with the people of Anguilla.
However, if we want a referendum we will need a law to govern the holding of the referendum. Such a law is not complicated. British Columbia has a simple seven section Act that we can copy. The British have long had Referendum Acts. The Bahamas has an even simpler six section Referendum Act. None of this is rocket science.
We could easily do it. If we really want to hold a referendum, there is no one who can stop us from enacting the necessary law. For the reasons given, I just don’t think it is a good idea.
Don, your writing, which is usually noteworthy for its outstanding clarity, leaves me confused today. You say:
ReplyDelete"If we really want to hold a referendum, there is no one who can stop us from enacting the necessary law. For the reasons given, I just don’t think it is a good idea."
In the context of using a referendum to vote on a new constitution, I agree. But I believe referenda, generally speaking, can be a useful part of a democratic society. Don't you agree?
I am sorry. You are correct. The statement was unclear. Yes, I do believe that referenda are a useful contribution to building a democratic society. It is a good idea for us to start using them in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is just in the context of approving a new Constitution that I think it is not a good idea to hold a referendum.
IDM
Mitch, let me remind you that a constitution is not liken your average court case where you sit and rule base on statutes and precedents but rarely public policy and morals. It's not remote but personal; it’s not dead but rather a living instrument which grows with the passage of time - it evolves or changes as the peoples' wants or needs change; it’s a special testimony or the single unified voice of a nation incomparable to non other.
ReplyDeleteYou contradicts yourself e.g. when you insulted our nation’s civilization by your previous posting of the 28 March 2008, ‘Commissions and Commissioners’ where you used the term: “to democratize government”, but yet you endeavor to disenfranchise a people further by removing their only real democratic voice – their ability to hold a referendum.
This indeed makes us look at you in a different light and questions your ulterior motive on the out come of this whole exercise Mr. Mitchell.
I am very sorry for appearing to be so cruel on you but it all doesn’t seem to add up and needs your clarification. I want to believe in you the way I believed in Thomas Jefferson when he said: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."
I am feeling this sense of disquiet somewhere… help me find it.
As my reply to your posting, Electoral Boundaries stated: “I beg we the people of Anguilla and Government alike, to take our most humble time by not rushing to any constitutional change without firstly critically analyzing such recommendations put forward through injection or rejection where necessary. No one, no authority, not even the UK nor the United Nations for that matter, will nor can, rush us into any acceptance or change of any future constitution. I beg the populace not to accept any change to the present constitution without a Constitutional Referendum. To do otherwise will be unwise, unconstitutional and undemocratic.”
Hello Realist,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest that you write, and edit, your contributions in Word, and copy and paste the document to this window?
You will have an opportunity to revise and correct the spelling and grammar before you publish.
That is the only way we are likely to understand what you are writing about.
If you do not follow this discipline, you will only be writing gibberish! We will not understand what you are writing.
That is the only reason why I cannot respond sensibly to your latest "contribution".
IDM
How adventurous are you in trying to embarrass me – keep climbing as you are surely slipping very fast. Interestingly, responses to blogs demand such political correctness.
ReplyDeleteMy use of Microsoft-Word is limited to professional relevance, and as such, I haven’t envisaged a mediocre commentary on corruption on Anguilla, over the Internet, demands such.
To this end, most of my responses are typed and posted spontaneously without research; a testament to being active in education. With your response, I do now understand your literal interpretation of the Sound Amplification (Restriction) Act.
However, my concerns and questions in plain English to you are:
1. Do you think that the Government of Anguilla Commission responsible for studying the recommendations presented by the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission should declare such recommendations null and void, since the said recommendations represent less than 10% of the population input and do not reflect a true picture of the majority of Anguillians concerns?
2. Do you think that this low response was a flat out rejection by the people of Anguilla, and as such, the people must not be forced into accepting any new changes recommended by this commission to the present Anguilla Constitution?
3. Do you think that disenfranchising the people’s right to a referendum diminishes and disregard their constitutional rights therefore, defeating democracy?
4. Now will denounce your term, “ democratize [Anguilla] government” made on the 28 March 2008, as a typographical error made in gust and had no relevance in reality and therefore, apologize to the Government and people of Anguilla.
In all the circumstances, your try and error embarrassment tactics were futile in every sense, as this sty is really not dirty enough to get down into.
Now I patiently await your answers on these relevant issues of concern.
Thank you!
Opps! It took another Rocket Scientist to tell me that the last question in my response is missing a big word: ‘you’. So to fully understand its content, it must be read in light of this additional word injected where necessary.
ReplyDelete4. Now will ‘you’ denounce your term, “ democratize [Anguilla] government” made on the 28 March 2008, as a typographical error made in gust and had no relevance in reality and therefore, apologize to the Government and people of Anguilla.
I hope this clarification assist content understanding and help you better formulate the answers requested.
Where were you when we needed you most I cried, with tears flushing from my eyes?
ReplyDeleteIn the prime of your life you refused to sacrifice - to a people, a nation desperate for advice.
You robbed, you cheated, you’ve abused every loophole for years untold. You’ve ill-gained, oh! - how insane we must have been.
Your potential partner-in-crime said no, I refused to go through that door – I am in love with Wadadli, and with him I must be.
A perceived outstanding leader was you, from a queue we see, excellent you will be.
You sowed and sowed, luckily you are back at our door. You ruled and caused chaos while afar - but not in my nation poppa.
Though think we are blinded and fast asleep, we are destined to defeat.
Now like shack-attack you’re back; with new demands you rant and rant - a new plan in your unclean hands to control our blessed land.
In the end my friend, to God you must repent - but I am sure he is not even your friend. It must be hell here living in this Lion’s Den.
Realist:
ReplyDeleteYou said that a constitution isn't not dead but rather a living instrument which grows with the passage of time.
Well, yes, a constitution should be amendable, but it should be fairly hard to change, and should take a *lot* of time and effort to change. It should be well thought out from the start, because you want the thing to last for a really, really long time.
Mitch's point is that a referendum on the constitution is just going to be an instantaneous snapshot reflecting the people's mood at that moment. That will just muddy the water and hamper the process.
Think about it: you'd get vastly different outcomes if you took the pulses of the public in, say, 1990, 1999, 2004 and 2008.
Laws and statutes can change rapidly - and that's generally a good thing. A constitution is an august document that should be very hard to amend. We are not talking about American Idol.
And yes, you should not write comments or post epistles spontaneously. Write them in a separate text editor, spell and grammar check your work and then...And then...save it and put it away for a small time. Even a minute or two. Then re-open it and try to read it like a stranger seeing it for the first time.
Very often, this simple trick will lead to editing for brevity and clarity. It certainly should lead to removal of ad hominem arguments. And it will avoid self-embarrassment.
"Then re-open it and try to read it like a stranger seeing it for the first time".
ReplyDeleteSorry, but if you had done similar, just perhaps you would have understand this debate. You are way off my friend.