l KINGSTOWN

At one level it is a question of people wanting to hold on to what they know, or what they assume they know, rather than venturing into the unknown. Without bothering to consider some of the clauses in the constitution upon which citizens here voted yesterday, some of the sentiments expressed against it include the fact that for many, the current Prime Minister has dictatorial and communistic tendencies.

One promotional message informed Vincentians that the proposed constitution would afford the government more leverage in a perceived design to go further towards communism and militarism.

In one section of the capital yesterday a discussion centred around uneasiness about moving the Queen as head of the country, one man worried over reports that portray St Vincent’s leader as wanting to make too many friends among such countries as Venezuela, Iran and Cuba. He doesn’t see how that will benefit the people. In fact he feels such alliances will hurt because of likely negative reactions from the US and other western powers.

Arguments among some went across the set of feelings concernng the visibility of Spanish-speaking people moving about the country in recent years. Some are suspicious, some are resentful. They are holding it against the Prime Minister and their vote in this referendum was going to reflect these attitudes.

The lady who runs the parlour on the street where such folks gather has a single concern and a stronger determination. ’I want the Queen to remain,’ she said, opposing the proposal in the new constitution for a President to be the head of state. ’Who will we put in her place,’ she asked, not wanting to think that a national of her country would take the Queen’s place. She voted ’No’.

A group of youths argued among themselves about what would happen to the currency-the EC dollar. The prospect that the country would have to devise its own currency were it to become a republic, with the possibility that this could lead to weakness, are frightening for some. Some had voted ’Yes’ while others voted ’No’. One of them supporting the proposition pointed to the fact that the US is the symbol of world capitalism while China is a communist state, but both countries are seeking to further strengthen their existing ties.

’Barbados is still a country with the Queen as the head of state,’ one ’Yes’ voter pointed out, ’but it has its own currency.’ He sought to inform his opponents that in Britain there are debates taking place right now about the relevance of the Crown to the country’s parliament, that the UK would eventually have to move to the euro as its accepted legal tender, and that under the current constitution, a Vincentian prime minister has as much power as he may wish to exercise.

Under the new arrangement, his powers would be diminished. But dissenting noises tended to drown him out.

A few corners away, another voter was walking, voting finger high in the air, shouting that as far as he was concerned, ’the Green party says No, and I vote No.’ He was not alone. It came down to that for many of those who would have cast their votes yesterday. They followed the party line, even though ’cross voting’ was evident.

One of the ’No’ voters was to say earlier he had never voted for the party in opposition, but felt there was too much to fear in what he had been hearing on the contents of the new constitution.

The 19 clauses in Chapter III in the proposed new constitution address ’Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms’. The next chapter deals entirely with the establishment, composition and functions of a human rights commission.

In the apparent absence of knowledge or understanding about constitutional arrangements in states such as T&T and Dominica, some of the ’No’ voters object to the new provisions for a president, using the Guyana model as their point of reference. They feel such an executive president has too much power. Others want the Prime Minister and the President to both be elected directly by the people. Since this is not what the new document proposes they object to it.

’We have had a constitution since 1979, which many of knew nothing about,’ the ’Yes’ advocate was saying. ’It was given to us. we had nothing to do with it. Now we have a chance to say what we feel we must accept and what we should not.’ That, to him, ought to settle the matter. He compared it to possession of a cherished old house. You may wish to keep it, but you would have to effect significant repairs to it.

His argument drives right into the heart of the arguments from the objectors. They would prefer to keep what they have, just as it is.