Time to break new ground

December 19, 2001

Pat Flounders, 51, shot herself in the head last week. Her husband died in the World Trade Center debacle on September 11. She had seen the scenario on TV and called her husband who worked on the 84th floor of the south tower. She insisted that he should leave for home immediately but instead he chose to stay back to assist a co-worker who had gone into shock.

That worker, in consideration for whom Mr Flounders gave his life, may have been of another race, may have been white-American, Afro-American, Jewish, even Muslim, it simply did not matter then. Flounders' decisive action reflects the "human-ness" upon which the future of this entire world rests.

All who will be sarcastic about this characteristic quality of the human being, all who will talk tongue-in-cheek about the ideal of democracy and the empowerment of the common citizen everywhere, only do so because of their inability and failure to recognise and pay homage to that specific human quality of which we speak. Without that quality there is no hope. It is all that we have ever had upon which to build.

Think of the firemen walking up flights of steps heading to almost certain death on September 11 because it was their job to do so in the quest to save lives other than their own. That should remain forever indelible in our mind's eye. I have not known nor seen any greater heroic act. It should have made us all proud to be of such brotherhood of humankind.

The question is: how can we see such quality of humanity displayed, how can such acts become part of our collective consciousness, and then turn around and proceed to live like depraved, unthinking beasts, defiling in the process all the social conventions and time-honoured institutions that have served to nurture that special quality of which we speak?

We know for sure and history constantly reminds us that life is best fulfilled only when it is utilised in the service of the common and collective good. Without such a philosophical basis any attempt at governance would degenerate into thuggery, corruption and exploitation on the basis of race, creed and ethnicity.

Genuine democracy, of the people, by the people and for the people, organised to the very last person, is the only form of governance that coincides and harmonises with that qualitative characteristic of the human being which has been defined above.

In the last column, titled "Caught in a constitutional bind", we defined democracy as "a modern concept that is premised on intelligent functioning of all who comprise society. It involves the reasoning of human beings, the capability to assess information, to weigh options, set priorities and set in motion a 'process' that, through an interlocking of various stages, results in social development."

Steve Ghany in rebuttal indicated that is not his concept. And he proceeded to give his definition as follows:

"...Democracy is simply the right of every citizen to enjoy the basic freedoms of society. One of these liberties is the right to vote regardless of our level of intelligence, education, or social development."

Hopefully Ghany did not derive his definition from a reading of ours. "Intelligent functioning" has nothing to do with level of formal education and social standing. We have to accept the view that once clear-cut information and the attendant options are placed before the people, they will be capable of decisive choice as well as setting priorities. The only issue is the mechanism or mechanisms through which this process can be engaged. And constitutional reform or "re-make" has mainly to do with conceptualising and designing these mechanisms.

Lisle Richardson responded by suggesting: "...We need to get rid of the Westminster system and come up with one to fit the needs of Trinidad and Tobago. We speak of independence, but we are still dependent on the British for everything... even a system that only works good for the British..."

Of course, we agree. British culture produced the British Constitution and the fact that it is not written tells us a lot about that culture and the importance of convention and practice. Our culture here did not produce what we call our "Constitution". It is therefore largely an imposition of our Crown colony past. We are yet to conceptualise and design our own thing and to do this we must break new ground altogether.

Ralph Premdas, who has awesome experience with post-colonial societies and island states struggling for self-determination and/or secession, has promised to let us have his views on the current political and constitutional impasse. And knowing Premdas' work, we anxiously await his "take" on the matter.

But Ralph Rampersad, Randolph Karamath and Claude Gonzales in their responses provided us with perfect examples of the mental depravity of which we spoke. Gonzales summed up this mentality succinctly: "...Hey, Bukka Rennie, that second sentence in your 12/12/2001 column could have been compressed to say: 'I hate Indians; they should not be allowed to rule Trinidad and Tobago'."

Is "hate" an option? And is it not that governmental power is only a small arm of State power and the weakest arm at that?

And is it not that all social groups here are reflected in the huge State apparatus that run things?

Is it not the "who" but the "what" that matters?