The picture is perhaps somewhat clearer now that we seem to be entering a mini political activity surge with Prime Minister Patrick Manning and his crew in election campaign mode ’educating’ the public, or should we say, his summoned faithful. One of the things that has emerged in the process is the proposed 51 constitutional consultations around the country to be chaired by Dr Hamid Ghany.

At the same time we hear mutterings of Green Papers, White Papers and Queen’s Hall-type consultations to iron out final details, the time scale being the next two or three years or so. We have even heard of justifications for the many future consultations, based mainly on the complexity of the issues, although Mr Manning seems not to appreciate that many citizens and citizens’ groups are more than capable of grasping the nature and implications of the proposals. But wait, aren’t there some missing parts of the equation?

Perhaps one worrisome element for many is the lack of access to the details of the proposed so-called Round Table draft constitution which no one is claiming responsibility for. Tabling it in Parliament is simply not enough, given the immense importance of the issue. The only option in a democracy such as ours was to have made hard copies of both the Round Table and Principles of Fairness draft constitutions more accessible to the public.

But other factors seem to have been eliminated from the equation. Perhaps it has been explained elsewhere but surely any decision to reform the existing Constitution must logically have been based on clearly defined deficiencies in the document. What are these? In any event, reform does not necessarily mean complete revamping and could also involve comprehensive amendments to the existing Constitution. Is there some place where citizens can access the arguments for either option?

Another factor is the issue of the processes leading up to the draft constitutions. The Round Table draft laid in Parliament came from Mr Manning. The Principles of Fairness draft, which is also not readily available, came from a self-appointed group. But surely a third group was involved, not so much in preparing a draft constitution, but in focusing on the process of arriving at a stage of constitutional reform. Is the Constitutional Reform Forum, which has been giving some measure of citizen involvement on the ground, not a part of the equation?

But perhaps the most worrying aspect of the process continues to be the format of the planned consultations, reflecting more of an attitude of top-down paternalism and condescension that belongs in colonial times. True we may be relatively undeveloped politically, but we are certainly not the same after almost 50 years of independence and we certainly have greater expectations of more effective governance and participatory democracy. Participation requires rather more that a high table of officialdom hearing voices from the floor.