Ever since 1966 we have had a written Constitution but, as recent events show, the vast majority of our people have little or no idea about the contents of that document which is the foundation of our system of government.
No consistent attempt has been made over the 46 years since that date to inform the country about the document and how it is designed to ensure the protection of all members of the society and their right not to suffer breaches of their human rights at the hands of the State and how our political governors are restrained in the exercise of power.
It is a telling commentary on our country that the rules of football and cricket are more widely known than the rules of our governance.
Spectators at a football match are able to appreciate when a player is “offside”. At a cricket match the spectators appreciate the variation of pace by the fast bowlers as much as they appreciate and understand the change of flight of the spin bowler who decides to bowl around the wicket in order to challenge the specific stroke play of the batsmen. They shout their encouragement or disapproval as the case may be and the entire enjoyment of the experience is enriched by their participation.
But, common sense apart, the average citizen is ill-equipped to analyse, for example, whether a prime minister has any authority to name his successor to the office of prime minister. We know that on one occasion in Parliament, the late Right Excellent Errol Barrow said that after him, Mr Sandiford was next and so said so done when Mr Barrow died suddenly.
Further, when Mr Adams died his deputy, Mr Bernard St John, succeeded to the top job, but on neither occasion did the public have a “say” in these decisions.
Considering the awesome power that a prime minister has once he is appointed, a first question is: does the Constitution speak about this issue, and if not, why not? A second question is: if it does speak to the issue, is the public aware of what it says? These are important matters.
What is more, the current controversy about the length of time a prime minister may remain in power before calling an election is being debated by a country in which about fewer than five per cent of the voters are aware of the nuances of the issue and what the Constitution may or may not say about it.
On occasions some spotty information has escaped into the public domain through Brasstacks and other discussion programmes, but a systematic course of information is needed on an ongoing basis so that the public may acquire some knowledge about this very important document which we call the Constitution and how it works or ought to work in practice.
Every five years or so, we elect some of our peers to collectively exercise the most awesome power on our behalf. How can we truly follow their policies and decisions unless we are at least minimally aware of the content and meaning of the document which allows us to delegate to them that power and at the same time constrains the exercise of that power.
In matters so important as these, ignorance cannot be bliss.
