Not now, ‘No’ to constituent assembly
THE discussions and debate on Charter change can now be considered an irritant. With all our problems in education, inflation and injustice, and more, changing the Constitution is not up there as a priority. Moreover, the only ones initiating seem to be legislators who give more than one reason for amendments to be made, from the economic provisions that need to be changed to attract foreign investments to loosening the term limits that are in place.
Worse, they want themselves to be the ones to amend as a so-called constituent assembly. Yes, that is one of the prescribed methods to change the Constitution, but the sentiment is clearly not for this legislature at this time to be the constituent assembly. There is much suspicion among the general public of a constituent assembly composed of the present crop of legislators.
Furthermore, if there will be changes or amendments to the Constitution, they should be spelled out clearly, succinctly and conclusively before they are attempted. So far, with the various reasons and excuses we hear, it seems there is a danger that it will be an open-ended series of constitutional changes which will veer far from the reasons given now and most probably stray into more privileges for the establishment and fewer opportunities for the hoi polloi.
Because, yes, we are a democracy in name and not in practice. Just note the political dynasty prohibition in the present Constitution and note that the laws to put it in place have not been made or even paid lip service to. You could say that the 1987 Constitution does not need change, it needs implementation. And if there is no implementation, is that a reason to change?
It is not that constitutions are so sacred and perfect they cannot be improved or be made more relevant to present circumstances. But the way to do it must be by consensus springing from the grassroots and not from the top down. And paid signatures in this case do not count as a grassroots initiative. The money comes from the top, which means they are propelling the move.
What changes are to be made to the Constitution, all things being equal, which at the moment they are not, must be made very clear and definite beforehand, not a general permit to do more. The Constitution is the law of a society that forms a nation, not of a particular group in that society.
Thus, the reports about signatures being bought for P100 is a turnoff that merits the shutting down of the whole effort to change the Constitution at this time. There is no reason to disbelieve that it happened as the time, the place and the P100 price were witnessed as reported. This is, disgracefully, credible news by witnesses pointing at specific perpetrators as well as the money disbursed and where it came from. We need to hear no more to believe what has been reported.
One self-serving reason why a constituent assembly is being proposed to be the managers of Charter change is because it would ostensibly be cheaper, faster and more decisive. Probably true, but because the very same people are to be the constituent assembly, the whole exercise is now seen as untrustworthy even if cheaper, faster and more decisive.
If Charter change should ever take place, it should happen best through a constitutional convention which admittedly will be more expensive, take a lot of time and cause many debates. But they will be conducted by people who were elected to do it as their only assignment which should have limits and not stray from them. And how come suddenly some legislators and the perpetrators of constitutional change are suddenly worried about budgets, especially if a constitutional convention is called? This is certainly not in character from what we have seen of bicameral doings to inflate budget numbers and make provisions for things sub rosa like signature-gathering.
Sure, there will be politicians coming along with the elected delegates to the constitutional convention, but that mix will bring about a better chance of doing things more honestly, less self-servingly and more inclusively.
And as for foreign investments being the overall excuse, the best way to get them is to cut the red tape on the national and local government level as well as the regulatory agencies and come down hard and relentlessly on corruption, rent-seeking and influence-peddling there and elsewhere. If we need change, that is the change we need.