A constitution is a contract between an abstract entity called the State and a living entity called ’the people’. That being the case, we hope that PNM leader Patrick Manning and UNC leader Basdeo Panday realise that their agreement on constitutional reform must come from the people and that, as leaders, their primary duty is to implement the desired relationship between State and citizens.

Of course, both Mr Manning and Mr Panday are free to persuade their respective followers on the need for constitutional reform in general, as well as specific arrangements such as an executive presidency. At the same time, if recent public opinion polls are to be trusted, neither Mr Manning’s nor Mr Panday’s followers constitute a large enough mandate to approve a new Constitution for the entire populace. Additionally, many of the persons who do not support either leader would be sceptical of Mr Panday or Mr Manning reforming the Constitution solely on the basis of what is good for the society.

Take the vexed question of an executive presidency, which both the PNM and UNC leaders approve in principle. Both historical and political analyses show that political leaders who enjoy untrammelled power are bad for their countries. The best-run nations, by contrast, are those where presidents and prime ministers have clear checks and balances on their powers, so that all important decisions are made by the government and not one man.

At the same time, historical and political analyses also show that politicians who serve in such a system are voted out of office sooner than leaders in flawed democracies or in dictatorships. So the only motive Messrs Manning and Panday would have to approve more democratic constitutional arrangements would be to keep the other man, and his successors, from holding on to power.

It is therefore clear, if only from the factor of their self-interest, that politicians cannot be allowed to dictate what constitutional arrangements are made for Trinidad and Tobago. Instead, a process must be initiated where the ideas and wishes of citizens are summarised and distilled, and constitutional clauses created to implement these aims. This is supposed to be the goal of the present round of consultations headed by political analyst Dr Hamid Ghany. However, by writing such a detailed document, Mr Manning and his cohorts have already invested in its ideas, and so what is happening is a defence of the document rather than a discussion of it.

If there is to be genuine discourse, it would be better to limit specificities to the principles and values that should inform a constitution. Then citizens can say what concrete clauses they want, thus creating a document that will truly belong to all of us.