The United Democratic Party released its Constitutional Discussion Paper 2008 Friday at its headquarters in George Town.
Mr. Bush |
The document offers commentary on specific aspects of the proposed new constitution. On some of the issues, the UDP makes its stance on the subject known; on others it comments on the People’s Progressive Movement’s proposed changes to the constitution.
The commentary is followed by questions it would like the public to answer as a way of stimulating thought and gauging public opinion.
Leader of the Opposition McKeeva Bush stressed the document was only the beginning of the UDP’s contribution to the constitutional modernisation process.
‘In this document, we have framed the issues in such a way that people can have an understanding of options that exist in other Overseas Territories such as ours and in other parts of the Commonwealth, vs. what this current government is seeking to impose on the people.’
Mr. Bush said the questions asked would help to shape the discussion on the constitution issues.
‘This will give everyone an opportunity to consider the implications of the answers for our island,’ he said.
The discussion paper was drafted after the UDP held varying forms of public meetings, both large and small, over the past several months.
‘We have listened to people’s responses based on their understanding of the government’s constitutional proposals and we have taken their questions and comments and have provided explanations where we can,’ Mr. Bush said.
‘We now have a document… which we believe covers a broad spectrum of issues that people have told us they would want to consider and debate when we come to decide on a constitution.’
Stated UDP positions in relation to PPM constitution proposals in the discussion paper include:
? No support for independence;
? That it would be unwise to have the Cabinet or legislature being able to direct the police;
? Agreement with constitutional provisions for the formation of a Commission for Standards in Public Life.
Some of the commentary or questions in the document are framed in such a way as to infer a stance by the UDP. The section of the Sister Islands voting system, for example, warns that the PPM proposal ‘would inevitably give rise to cannibalistic politics’ and ‘could potentially create bizarre results at the polls’.
With regard to the judiciary, the discussion paper states ‘it is for obvious reason that you do not want any of [the Legislative Assembly, the Cabinet and the Judicial Department] to have undue influence on the other’ and then asks the single question: ‘Do you believe that politicians or politically selected persons should be involved in appointing judges?’
The section concerning the Cayman Islands Civil Service states ‘… we would want to ensure that [civil servants] are left to carry on this good governance without victimisation by politicians’ and then asks the single question: ‘Do you support the Constitution carrying provisions that the civil servant is protected by being responsible to His Excellency the Governor and not elected politicians?’
The other sections in the document are more probing in nature, with as many as seven questions following the commentary.
The document discusses several possible constitutional changes not proposed by the PPM, including:
? An appointed senate to help review legislation and make recommendations for changes;
? District councils to help decide how government budget funding should be spent in their district;
? A citizens oversight committee for the police;
? Constitutional footing for the Public Accounts Committee, with the chairman being the Leader of the Opposition;
? Protection of the economic system by preventing legislators from promoting political systems ‘such as socialism, communism and the vagaries of European policy …’
In addition, the last section of the document asks the most fundamental question of the whole constitutional modernisation process; ‘Do you believe we should seek to a modernised constitution?’
Mr. Bush said that question had to be asked.
‘There are a lot of people who are saying we don’t need [constitutional] changes; that we have done well,’ he said. ‘This country has not gone to pieces under the current system.’
Mr. Bush said the suggestions and questions in the discussion paper reflected the UDP’s desire ‘that a modernised constitution in the Cayman Islands be a living, breathing instrument that protects our economic well-being and the interests of future generations’ and not just a document that gives Cayman what some other Overseas Territory got.
‘We do not see it as an occasion to appropriate more power onto ourselves, as the government seems inclined to do, but rather an opportunity to strengthen good governance of these islands.’
Mr. Bush said the UDP expected to continue meeting with people to talk about the discussion paper and to get feedback on it.
Opposition MLA Rolston Anglin said the UDP was working on a method of recording and collating feedback in a systematic way.
Mr. Bush said he was hoping the Chamber of Commerce might assist in that matter.
With regard to how long it has taken to release the discussion paper, Mr. Bush said it had taken time because the UDP wanted to ensure its contents reflected ‘a studied appreciation for the views of our constituents, across the length and breadth of our three islands.’
‘It was important for us to take this approach, bearing in mind how the previous constitutional review went.’
The UDP government’s attempt to modernise the constitution in 2002/2003 failed after it was found there was no majority support for some of the proposed provisions.
Opposition MLA Cline Glidden said getting the people’s views – and not just making proposals – was the thought process behind the discussion papers.
‘It’s the people’s views that we want,’ he said. ‘It’s not what we want.
‘The proposals made by the PPM made an assumption they knew what the people wanted. The tight timeframe for the process shows that. Obviously, that’s not the case.’
Related Videos
