Dr. Wendy Grenade
It is commendable that on November, 6th, 2018, two OECS countries, Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada, will each hold a national referendum on whether they should accede to the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ. However, a pertinent question arises: What should be the role of the State, and in particular the executive branch of government in the process? Should the executive branch actively promote a “Yes” campaign? Or, should the focus be solely on education and public sensitization, explaining the pros and cons of the CCJ, thus enabling citizens to make an informed decision on referendum day?
Some observers argue that it is immoral for the executive branch to spearhead a “Yes” campaign. They are of the view that if the constitution provides for a referendum, then the people must decide without the influence, one way or another, of the executive branch. This concern is a valid one that should not be easily dismissed. It strikes at the heart of governance, the legitimacy of the State and public trust in the process.
That being said, I am of the view that the role of the executive branch in a referendum should be determined by the nature of the referendum itself. That is, what does the referendum set out to accomplish? For example, does the executive branch have a narrow partisan interest in the outcome? Will the powers of the executive branch be expanded? Does the ruling party stand to gain an unfair advantage or are the issues above the cut and thrust of partisan politics?
A distinction needs to be made between a referendum that is called by a self-interested government to increase its political capital and a referendum that seeks to correct historical wrongs or promote peace, freedom and justice for the common good of the nation as a whole. An example of the former was in 1978 when the Forbes Burnham administration in Guyana held a referendum aimed at changing Article 73 of the independence constitution. The bill proposed that any further constitutional changes would be made by two-thirds parliamentary majority. That referendum, to abolish referenda, in effect took away the powers of the people to decide on constitutional issues, enlarged the powers of the executive branch, entrenched a culture of paramountcy of the ruling party and paved the way for an Executive Presidency.
This is not the case with the CCJ. To the contrary, accession to the CCJ in both jurisdictions, provides an opportunity for Caribbean countries to complete their independence and allows for greater access to justice for ordinary Caribbean citizens. The CCJ is not about partisan gain. It is concerned fundamentally with nationhood and regionalism.
It is not unusual for governments to actively support a particular position in a referendum. At a basic level, why seek the will of the people if the government is not prepared to intentionally promote the outcome it seeks? There are recent glaring examples where governments have called referenda and have aggressively taken a particular stance. President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia led the “Yes” Campaign in the 2016 Peace referendum. He subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2016 for his resolute efforts to bring the country’s more than 50-year-long civil war to an end. In June 2016, Former British Prime Minister David Cameron spearheaded the “remain” campaign in the controversial Brexit referendum. Similarly, then Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi spearheaded the “Yes” campaign in the 2016 constitutional referendum in Italy. These are but a few recent examples.
In the case of the CCJ, since governments have an obligation to promote the ‘common good’ as part of the social contract between citizens and the State, a “Yes” campaign is justified by the executive branch in this instance. As such, there is need for a well organised broad-based “Yes” campaign involving State and non-state actors. For its success, the campaign must be built around consensus among political parties.
Importantly, a “Yes” campaign does not negate the need for public education and vigorous debate as a critical imperative to address the legitimate concerns of citizens. Honest facts about the CCJ must be presented to the people. There must be openness to critique and willingness to listen to the people. At the end of the day, the November 6th referendum in Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada respectively, presents an opportunity to showcase the maturity of both democracies on a matter that is central to the lives of Caribbean people.
