Text of 1st of 4-Part Discussion Series on the Montserrat Constitution
WC: Good evening listeners and welcome to this, our first program discussing the constitution. The University Center in association with ZJB will host the 4-part discussion series on the subject of the Constitution. This is the first program that you’re hearing tonight. The topics to be discussed include the historical context of the Montserrat constitution, defining the constitution and analysing the Montserrat constitution.
Tonight we will be talking about the historical context of the Montserrat constitution. The resources persons are lawyers, David Brandt and Jean Kelsick, as well as the Resident Tutor, Professor Howard Fergus. Now, this evening in the studio I have with me, my first guest on this program, this 4-part series, Sir Howard Fergus. And, Sir Howard, as you know, is a professor at the University of the West Indies and he is also the Resident Tutor at the University of the West Indies here. And he is a historian and many other things. Good evening, sir.
HF: Good evening.
WC: The constitution. I know that you have something to present and you’ll make an official statement. But especially for our new and young leaders, what exactly is the constitution?
HF: Well, that in fact is the subject of one of the coming lecture discussions. But a constitution is really a body of laws and rules, to put it simply, by which a country is governed.
WC: You have something to present tonight and this has to do with the historical context of the Montserrat constitution. And listeners, you will hear from Sir Howard as he goes through his presentation. After that I will have some questions for him and then later on in the program, if you have questions or comments, you can always call us and remember you can write the number down. It’s 491-7227 if you want to join us a little later. Sir Howard.
HF: Thank you very much and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Since this is the first in a series, let me just say something by way of background. The sound and talk of constitution is in the air, particularly among the British overseas territories in the region. If fact some of our neighbours are also engaged in reviewing their constitution. Montserrat is no exception. I suspect that before long, some kind of constitutional committee will be announced and we too will be looking at our constitution. With that in mind, the University of the West Indies thought it would be useful to discuss the whole matter of constitution as a kind of background to what might be happening later.
Tonight, I begin with a presentation. This will largely be a presentation giving the historical background to the constitution by which Montserrat is governed. Let me begin with the present, although I’m talking about history.
The current Montserrat constitution is contained in a document called the Montserrat Constitutional Order 1989. This document is infamous, in my view, both for the manner in which it was formulated and how it was delivered to Montserratians. It was imposed on the country while it was still reeling from a knockout blow from hurricane Hugo.
It was, though, a landmark document in that for the first time, the island was given a consolidated constitution or a constitution that was contained in one and the same document. Because before this, what we had was a number of scattered, legal documents and instruments such as the Montserrat Letters Patent of 1959; the Constitution and Election Ordinance in the Laws of Montserrat, cap 153; the Montserrat Royal Instructions, 1959; and the Montserrat Governor Order 1971. So the whole idea of a constitution in one document did not come into being in Montserrat until very recently, 1989.
What all of these documents had in common with the Montserrat Constitution Order, 1989 was that they were all imposed by the British government and no reference was made to the local population and they were not consulted on this matter of how they were to be governed, the rules and regulations by which they were governed.
The new constitution, the constitution of 1989, which is what governs us, now, has a Bill of Rights and it seems ironical to me that the right to consult a colonial people about the legal framework for their governance was not considered important.
So Montserratians were handed this document and it was more or less a take it or leave it situation. Montserratians did, however, raise objections to certain measures, particularly the power given to the governor to introduce legislation on matters pertaining to certain powers that he had, and still has, known as his reserve powers. And under certain conditions, he was able to put into effect that legislation, even it were not passed by the Legislative Council. In other words, the constitution would have given him original legislative power.
The Chief Minister at the time was John Osborne, and to his credit, he resented this provision in the constitution. He regarded it, in my words, as repugnant and there was some pressure put on the British government to change this particular measure in the Constitution.
The Montserrat Chamber of Commerce spoke against it and a number of persons actually went to the Foreign Office in London to protest that measure in the constitution. The Chief Minister himself led a delegation and another delegation was lead by former Chief Minister, P. Austin Bramble. As a result of these protests, coupled with meetings that were held locally denunciating this, what was called the rollback of the constitution, the taking away of rights that people had or powers that people had, as a result of this agitation, the British government, in fact, relented and withdrew that part of the constitution, which I think was Section 45. Because, what it really did, it allowed, so to speak, the governor to usurp a power, which properly belonged to the elected representatives of the people.
I would suspect that any future constitutional review will have to be consultative in mode and there are good grounds for thinking so because the British have, in deed, changed their approach and we have seen constitutions come into being in other overseas territories, dependent territories, whatever the nomenclature, such as the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands as a result of consultation with the people. This is a welcome and long overdue change.
From the outset, governance in Montserrat has been centralized, authoritarian and undemocratic. I am going now to the root of it all, to the beginning of it all. Before emancipation, black Montserratians were not even regarded as people, so the word, citizen, as applied to them was even irrelevant. The landowners and their agents pretended to practice democracy. But even whites who had no property were not allowed to participate in the so-called democratic government. The Irish, for instance, who are, in some sense, a peripheral people were excluded from civic life until 1828, not too long before emancipation of African people in Montserrat.
So there was really never any true democracy in colonial Montserrat. What obtained, in fact, was government by a few, what some people would call an oligarchy. And since these persons were mostly planters, the word that came into fashion, into vogue, was plantocracy, meaning that it was government by planters, for planters. For most of the 17th and 18th century then the island was governed in this way. In fact, the island was governed by what is referred to in history as the old colonial system and under this system, you had a governor or the governor’s representative, whether he was called a lieutenant governor or later on a commissioner or even a president. And in addition to the governor or his representative, there was a council, which was nominated by the governor and this council was an advisory body.
So notice the governor are featured in his own right, had an important role in the constitution, he nominated a slate of persons called a council, who advised him and then there was the third estate, if you like, called the assembly. And this was a powerful body, but it was elected on a very narrow franchise. It represented an elite group, people of their own kind. As I indicated above, it was a government of planters by planters for planters. But they were very powerful and very often, they could impose their will on the governor by, for instance, refusing to vote taxes in order that the government could be carried out.
One of the interesting things about this system, this whole colonial system, was it resembled closely the Westminster model and once we are talking about constitution, you’ll be hearing a lot about the Westminster model because our constitutions, our mode of government, our pattern of government tends to be modelled on what happens at Whitehall and what happens at Westminster. And this old colonial system was, in embryo, the Westminster model. Just as how, in Westminster, you had King, House of Lords and the House of Commons, in Montserrat, you had governor, council and assembly. The problem is we often transport these models into situations that do not exactly fit the model situation and what Caribbean governments, whether they are overseas territories or not have to do, is perhaps to be more creative in coming up with constitutions that are more culturally relevant.
Let me go on to what happened after emancipation. I’ve given you some idea of how the country was governed before emancipation. Now after emancipation, the freed people should have been able to participate in civic life. They should have been able to vote and perhaps be voted into power, but they couldn’t. In fact, partly to prevent this, the assembly voted itself out of power because you can see what would happen. If all of this freed people were to access power, they would be in the majority and I don’t think that the elite group in the society would have wanted to tolerate this. So the assembly actually voted itself out of power as happened in several other Caribbean territories and the colonies then were governed more directly by the British government.
Moving on from immediately after emancipation, I move to the year 1951. Let me just say that what happened between emancipation and 1951, was that gradually there were changes in which elected members came into council but the elected members were never enough to wield power over the official element and the nominated element. 1951, though is a landmark year because for the first time, Montserratians gained what is called adult universal suffrage, or the right to vote regardless of wealth. In other words, as long as you were an adult, you were given the right to vote. You didn’t have to be a landowner. You didn’t have to have property with a rental value with a particular rental value and so on. And it was this constitutional change that brought into power our first working class leaders, people like Griffith and Bramble.
What is to be noted though, it that during this long period of colonialism with whatever disabilities it had, and it had disabilities, with whatever discriminations there were in one’s own country and there were discriminations, Montserratians, nevertheless, enjoyed British citizenship, including the right to abode in the United Kingdom right up to 1962. So when our people migrated in droves to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and early 1960s, they were, in fact, exercising a right conferred on them by their British citizenship and confirmed by their holding of a British passport.
The crucial change came with the Commonwealth Immigration Acts of 1962 and 1968. These acts actually deprived British dependent territories of their right of abode in the United Kingdom. So in a sense, the British deprived colonial peoples coming from the oppression of slavery and landlordism of a vital, redeeming privilege. Now having lost this right in 1962, Montserratians were classified by the British Nationality Act of 1981 as British Dependent Territory Citizens and if you were from Montserrat, you put Montserrat in brackets after that. And what this firmed up, this concretized the differentiation between British people and ourselves and incidentally, between the people of Gibraltar and the people of the Falkland islands who continued to have right of abode in the United Kingdom. And this comparison was particularly irritating to some peoples in British overseas territories.
And since I’ve made that comparison, let me, before looking to the future, make a comparison between Montserrat and other British overseas territories and their French counterparts, like Guadeloupe and Martinique because there is a sense in which the French, in which, France treated Guadeloupe and Martinique very differently to how the British treated Montserrat, BVI and so on.
You see, in 1946, France decolonized, as it were, and normally I would write that word in inverted commas, France, decolonized these Antillean colonies and made them overseas departments of France, giving them full French citizenship, including the right to elect representatives to the French National Assembly. So, in that sense, as far as voting was concerned, as far as the franchise was concerned, there was no difference really between the people of Guadeloupe and Martinique and the people of metropolitan France.
Some people would argue that this had its disadvantage because what it did was to bring a strong infusion of the culture of France into Guadeloupe-Martinique and made them little France, if you like. These islands promoted French culture at the expense, it could be argued, of indigenous culture, and perhaps of a spirit of independence in the long run. And what came with that into Martinique-Guadeloupe was that Frenchmen took powerful positions, senior positions, perhaps in the public service and so on, which is one of the drawbacks that often come with colonialism and with control by an outside power.
Let me go on to the future situation and then stop. Through a new act of the British parliament, presently in progress, Montserratians will be offered a new status, British citizenship. As I understand it, it is non-reciprocal and it is optional for the take. In other words, it’s not going to be imposed and Montserratians will retain their status as British overseas territories citizens. And I’m giving my interpretation of what I read, what I hear, what I understand.
It is not clear to me that Montserratians will automatically acquire all the privileges which attach to British citizenship in metropolitan Britain. They will not, for instance, or should I have said, they may not, for instance, necessarily have automatic right of entry to the United States of America. They might, they might not. I don’t know. The point I’m making is that an act of the British parliament does not necessarily bind the United States immigration authorities. On the other hand, I expect Montserratians to have right of entry to Europe because to do otherwise, will appear to be discriminatory and her majesty’s government should ensure that this does not happen.
I hope that we have fully moved into a new era of consultative government with her majesty’s government and even at home, and that we have moved from the night of oppression into the daybreak of mutual respect and real partnership with Britain.
British citizenship is really a restoration of the status quo of something that Montserratians had before. There maybe qualitative differences, but in essence, Montserratians once enjoyed British citizenship. It may not have extended to rights and privileges in Europe, but they had right of entry and abode into Europe.
I think I will stop there. Thank you for listening to me and if Mr. Cabey would like to pose any questions, I would endeavour to answer. If there is something that I don’t immediately know, I’ll research it for another program and then we can take a few questions from the listening public, if there are questions.
WC: Thank you very much, Sir Howard. Did you or did not say it all?
HF: Well, what I tried to do was to give a fair … being the first speaker on the subject and dealing with the historical context, to give a background, a historical background of the whole business of constitution and prepare people for a discussion on the Montserrat constitution itself at some point in the series.
WC: Thank you very much sir. My first question: What was the purpose of bringing those bits of legislation that you mentioned way up in the presentation, what was the purpose of bringing those bits of legislation together.
HF: It was a way of modernizing the constitution. All of the independent countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean have a constitution. They have a document called a constitution, which the British assisted them with. They worked on it themselves and then it was passed in the British parliament. I think it was an attempt at modernizing the constitution. It was more convenient. And one of the innovations in the Montserrat Constitution Order 1989 was the insertion of a Bill of Rights. Most constitutions now tend to have a Bill of Rights, a number of rights that a citizen is supposed to have.
WC: Those reserve powers by the governor, as I understand it, the governor does some things in consultation with the government but he can also use his discretion. Is that exactly the reserve powers? What does that mean?
HF: Yes. Some of those powers have to do with matters like foreign affairs, external affairs and so on. The governor can consult on these matters. There are matters that deal also with the civil service and so on. He consults, but very often, in constitutions, where someone has the right to consult, very often it means that he doesn’t have to abide by the advice that he is given. You consult. I can ask you your opinion on a particular matter, how do you think I should act on a particular matter? The governor can ask Executive Council its opinion, their opinion, on a particular matter, but if he has discretionary power, he doesn’t have to abide by that advice.
WC: So then, can I put a question mark here in terms of is this democracy?
HF: Well, it depends on what we take democracy to mean. I suppose democracy isn’t always absolute power in every dimension. You can say that powers are distributed. If you want to say that -- it’s not-- that kind of consultation is not genuine, is not having people to participate, genuinely, in discussion and in decision-making, perhaps you are right.
WC: Now, in terms of the decision-making, you mentioned the BVI and Turks and Caicos Islands, how did they get into this consultative mode with the British?
HF: I think there was a change. There was a change in how the business of forming constitution was being carried out. Well, essentially that. There was a change and from henceforth and I think that all of these constitutions will grow out of consultation with the people. I suppose it came from a growing sense, a growing realization that if we are going to be practicing democracy, that we must appear-- there must be more transparency. There must be more actual participation of people in their own government. And that’s what development is about really. If people are not participating in decisions that affect them in critical ways, then they are still in a situation of underdevelopment.
WC: OK, Sir Howard. We will be taking a few calls in a moment. And remember, listeners, you can call us on 491-7227 if you have a question or a comment on the program. 491-7227. Sir Howard, I am a little interested in the right of abode and what happened during that period. How did that really help in terms the immigration between Montserrat and the UK? Because as I understand it, a lot of people did go to England between those years, when they had what you called right of abode.
HF: Well, people went to England in the 1950s and 1960s. I merely cited that period because people went in droves. There was sort of mass exodus in those years. People were pushed by hard times in Montserrat and there was a lot of unskilled labour in England at the same time. But because of the old citizenship right which the colonies had before the brakes were to put on, people didn’t have to get a visa or entry certificate as we had to do afterwards. So there were push and pull factors. There were the push factors of hard time, downturn in agriculture; the pull factors of jobs in the hospitals in Britain, the underground, British transport. And it was easy for people to go because of their British passport and their British citizenship.
WC: Now we have the issue of the British passport coming up again. What happened in 1962, the reclassification?
HF: Actually, the reclassification was finalized in 1981, I think, which was the law that made us British dependent territories citizens. But even before that, as you’re saying, there were these commonwealth immigration acts, and what they, in fact, did, they took away the right of abode so there was more control. It didn’t mean that you couldn’t perhaps enter, but there was control. You had to have a visa. You had to sort of show, even if you were going for a short time, that you had enough money to take care of yourself, you wouldn’t be a burden on the British medical services and so on. It was a way of controlling the entry of colonial peoples into the United Kingdom.
WC: What is the status of the folks from Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands?
HF: Well, they were allowed a special status at the time when others were denied right of abode and right of entry. Well, up to now, they have this special right. They have right of abode, which we are now trying to acquire, so to speak. Well, perhaps, not we are trying to acquire, which is what the British is now offering. But they didn’t lose. They got the right of abode. I think there were special laws passed for them to give them the right of abode. I think, the Gibraltarians, 1981 and 1983, while the British Nationality Act excluded Montserratians, special acts were passed to allow the Gibraltarians to continue to enjoy the right.
WC: Sir Howard, I think that we are in the process of putting together a constitutional committee. What is going to be the make-up of that committee?
HF: Well, I think the governor is really the person to tell us the make-up of that Committee. So, that I’m really not in a position to do that.
WC: In these days of passports and talking about the British passport, how does that reflect on what you just went through in terms of the history, because most folks seem to be saying that yes, the British will say, but they have always traditionally, done things whether we like it or not.
HF: Well the British citizenship does not rule out our present status. We are British overseas territories. And that relationship still exists. The British will still be responsible to the international community for Montserrat so it will not prevent us from being, if you like to use the old “C” word, a colonial people. Montserrat will still be a colony of the United Kingdom. We may not use the word, colony. We may use, overseas territory. Mark you, some people feel that the word, territory is just as bad as colony, so for me, they are interchangeable.
WC: Of course, there are going to be certain implications with a change of constitution. What are some of the implications that we may say see depending on what is being planned?
HF: I don’t want to speculate about the changes. That largely is left to the people of Montserrat because as I understand it, the people will be consulted so I really do not want to anticipate the changes that will take place.
WC: How is important is that process where the people come out or even call in on this program and let their voice be heard? How important is that?
HF: It’s very important. It is very important because they will have to be listened to and that’s what consultation is about. The collective thinking of the people should be reflected in whatever constitutional makeup we have. I don’t know that it will necessarily work like that. We can’t have a constitution…. Well, let me put it differently. The fact that Britain is still ultimately responsible for us, the fact that there is a veto on our legislating, I do not know what will happen to those provisions. They’d still perhaps be there. In other words, what I am saying, it may necessarily mean that we have a blank cheque as far as a constitution is concerned. But it is important that the people be heard, that the people talk about how they want power distributed because a constitution, among other things, is about power. Who has what power? How power is distributed? It is about participation in governance and so on.
WC: And of course, right now, I’m probably right to say that we are in a better position than in the past to really, you know, make an input?
HF: Well, we are certainly more enlightened from that point of view. Economically, we are a poorer country and more dependent but that shouldn’t mean that our voice should not be heard and our people’s views should not be taken into account. So maybe you’re right.
WC: Now in those early days when you had folks like the honourable Chief Minister, now John Osborne and P. Austin Bramble, you know, leading the charge in terms of opposition to that particular section of the bill, what was the atmosphere like as a historian writing on this?
HF: I think a fair number of people were interested and it served to open people’s eyes about constitutional matters and you did have some young persons who got involved in the discussion and it helped with the political education of the people. I think one of the important developments, over the last maybe 20 years, or so is an increasing political awareness in the people of Montserrat. I think people are much more politically aware, much more politically mature than they were a quarter of a century ago. And all of these … matters like those help that particular process.
WC: How would you compare that period of John Osborne, P. Austin Bramble with the days of W.H. Bramble and R.W. Griffith, in terms of carrying through the whole process?
HF: Those people were very, very important. They had a kind of charisma that was important. Their message was in a way simpler, not simpler in the sense of simplistic, but maybe single-minded in that people like Griffith, they were talking against imperialism and colonialism. And everybody was doing that. And it was a strong message. It was a new working-class movement that was being born in the Caribbean and what they did … they laid the foundation, the very important foundation for the modern era. So they were very important. And we needed a new kind of voice, a new kind of thinking and I believe that this new voice and this new thinking began to emerge and has since grown. And, we do have some mature people in our society who can think for themselves, who can hold their own, who can analyze situations and come up with views that even if you don’t agree with you have to respect.
WC: Is there a role here for former or even the parliamentarians, those who are even not in power in now, those former parliamentarians and politicians, in terms of this whole way forward?
HF: I think there is a role for everybody. I think we must never underestimate any of our people. There’s a role for the experienced and maturity. There’s a role for the young people as well. And I think that even senior children, senior students in school should be involved in any talk about the constitution because they will live under that framework of laws as well.
I think there is a role for everybody. It’s a small society. In fact, our society is so small now with about 5000 people, that it’s convenient to practice democracy, because democracy in the Greek city-state tended to involve everybody. And there is a sense in which our society is so small that we need to … that it is easier to involve as many people as possible in any discussion about constitution, democracy and development.
WC: OK, Sir Fergus, I think we may have to go over to our phone lines. Good evening caller.
John Wilson Good evening. Dr. Fergus I want to make a few remarks here. I am myself involved in politics but I must say something, which might be a little sad. I want to feel that at this time in our history …
WC: Can you speak up?
John Wilson … I need to say that at the time when the other Caribbean islands, St. Kitts, Antigua went independent and Montserrat refused associated statehood with Britain, that that was a mistake. I felt that we should have had that one step up instead of just remaining as a colony. We never thought to break or to advance ourselves by putting our foot on the higher rung. I think, you said in one of your writings that you felt that that was a political mistake, not to have taken associated statehood. It was a step up to independence.
At this time, I feel that in our country that our people are afraid of the question of independence and to me it’s a natural growth if we are developing as a people and as a nation. No matter what state of your economy, it is an intellectual state I’m talking about here. Am I going to fast?
HF: No. I’m listening to you. I’m hearing you say that independence is an intellectual state.
John Wilson Of course, there are some realities. We have no economy at this time and I find that it is unfortunate that because of certain realities, to my mind, we are being denied the real advancement that we need to have as a people. I find that at this time when our people are being offered or being duped into accepting British citizenship at a time when we are most vulnerable, I think it’s sidetracking the whole question of us being a people. There is no question. There is no one promoting us being a people called Montserratians. I find that we losing sight of that goal and it seems to be springing from the fact that we are so weak and vulnerable. And I’m little ashamed, really, that I am not seen to be in the front. I am frightened when I look at the fact, that at this particular time, I am in a position where, in a government that is watering down the future of our country by losing sight of who we wish to be. This whole question of this British citizenship is going to set us back 25 years and we will not be awakened politically enough to realize where we are.
HF: Well, I can’t obviously join you in attacking your government.
John Wilson I’m not attacking my government. I’m talking about my people.
HF: I thought you said you’re in a government that is watering down. Did I hear you correctly?
John Wilson It’s a criticism, maybe not an attack but these are criticisms and I feel just so openly that we should be looking clearly at the question of the future of this country to say, what is our identity? Not British citizenship. Well, am I a Montserratian? What is the future of our country? What would it be in the next 10 years? What am I going to say to my grandchildren in the next 10 years as to their identity? And things like that.
HF: There’s not much that I can say, that I can comment on. You have given your …
John Wilson Well let me say a few more words to say that when I review the past maybe 20 years, I feel that we need to have even a conscious awakening and I rather liked what happened in that great moment when Dr. George Irish entered the political arena. Of course, he miscalculated and his miscalculation should not, maybe blind us of the real value of work that he did. But Irish brought a consciousness to our people and we became awake. We were awakened even for, maybe, with a moment of time, the way he pushed this consciousness through his social and cultural approach to us. Would you agree with me that there was an awakening of our people during at that period time? We are lacking that, even today. I say this without … I’m criticizing myself, let me criticize myself. I say that Montserratians need to be awakened at this point in our history to know who we are and who we wish to be, not being watered down with any sidetrack of British citizenship.
WC: Thank you very much, caller. Sir Howard, what he mentioned about statehood, why, and did we really refuse statehood?
HF: I can’t talk for the politicians of the time, but the politicians of the day, perhaps thought that it was premature for Montserrat to attain that status. In fact, it was an in-between status that didn’t last for too long in Antigua and St. Kitts and the others. It carried with it the right to go on to independence, which they did. I’m not sure I stated it exactly as the caller said, but that’s beside the point.
Let me just comment on one or two of the points he made because he said so many things, really. I agree with him that during the time, not necessarily when Dr. Irish went into politics, but his work at the University Center, his cultural work did bring a period of enlightenment and awakening and I’ve written about that. So, I agree with that. As to whether people are being duped into accepting citizenship, I don’t know. It’s for the people to say that. That’s a very emotive term, being duped. My understanding is that I have a right to accept … I have the privilege to accept it or reject it, so I wouldn’t regard myself as being duped in any particular way.
WC: I think what some folks are thinking about is maybe the benefits from taking the citizenship.
HF: Yes. Most people I listen to think that they’d like the benefits. And perhaps somebody, maybe who understands the privileges and the disadvantages better than myself, need to explain them. But my understanding is that we’re not compelled to accept British citizenship. And on the whole issue of independence, it is the people of Montserrat who must decide whether they want independence and tell their leaders so. It is the people of Montserrat who must decide that and not any academic.
WC: So do those folks who are saying that if we take this British citizenship, we are giving up our rights to be called Montserratians, what would you say to them?
HF: Well, I don’t’ agree. I don’t want to enter in an argument about that but I don’t see what would prevent me from being called a Montserratian or being a Montserratian because of my culture, because of my way of life, because of, well of the culture, in which I am steeped, and in which I was brought up. But it is a debatable issue, and I don’t’ want the business of the constitution to be sidetracked. It is one of those open-ended issues that will go on forever and it is an interesting debate. And perhaps it should be a subject of discussion and subject of study and maybe we should take it up more seriously at another point, because it’s worth looking into.
WC: OK. Let’s take another call. Good evening.
John Wilson I had to come back for another comment. I must apologize if I’ve left out any important person in my whole discussion just a while ago. Uppermost in my mind is this whole question of the agitation and the leading that is necessary to promote the whole question of our development and our eventual independence. And in current times, and in current times, and even over the past number of years, I must not forget my colleague, Chedmond Browne who was one of the strong activists on the question of independence. You see, Dr. Fergus, in my simple way, as I look at the question of a constitutional review, a constitutional review, to my mind, should reflect a movement, a mobility, a growth to something.
HF: Yes, I agree with you.
John Wilson And I feel as we review the past 25 years, at this time, we as a people, we have to be seen as reaching towards something. This is why I am a little alarmed. I tell you I am very, very alarmed at the present situation that I notice this country to be in. I’m very, very alarmed. I feel we are at the threshold of slipping backwards. Chedmond Browne was muffled in the last general election because he was a strong proponent of independence and he was muffled and prevented from speaking out as he wished to speak out. Maybe, politically it was convenient for him to be. And I disagree that we should be kept quiet. I feel that we need to speak up clearly on this whole question of us as a people, whether it’s independence, whatever growth it is. And as we go into this constitutional review, we are going to afraid to say to the British, look you have a government that has almost supreme authority. You have a government that can overrule the elected representative of the people. As you said a while ago, he can consult but he doesn’t necessarily have to accept the advice given to him. And in a modern day, this is totally an anachronism. Since democracy cannot be, it ought not to be.
WC: OK caller. I think, Sir Howard will respond.
HF: Well I think that the caller is perhaps in a strong position to make his voice heard. The caller, is obviously part of a political faction and in the privileged position of being part of the ruling group in the country. So that he is well placed to make his position clear as far as the future is concerned.
Let me say that I am more bothered, or just as bothered about the economic situation, and while I do not share the view that you must achieve economic independence in preparation for political independence, because what is economic independence? I still believe that your economy, the state of your economy has to reach a certain threshold. I don’t’ believe that in a state of abject dependence, economic independence, that in a state of poverty that the big priority is a flag and an anthem and whatever else, and a name. Now having said that, it should not be thought that nothing can be done or that nothing has been done.
I’ve looked at Manifestos in which people were saying, let us put certain things into place. Let us educate people. Let us have a national song and so on. And those activities, as I understand them, were geared towards preparing people, psychologically, intellectually and so on, while at the same time working at the economy.
WC: I think we have another caller. Good evening.
Chedi: Yes. Good evening. I have a question for Dr. Fergus. I’d just like to ask Dr. Fergus if an academic cannot be an activist? Because he made the statement to the effect that academics cannot determine movements towards independence; that must be done by the people. But, I want to know well, who is going to educate the people, to politically educate them and bring them to that awareness of that need to move in that direction? If it is the academic and intellectual community and the thinkers in the community, who? I would like to know if an academic cannot be an activist too?
HF: Yes. An academic can be an activist. A lot of academics are activists but one has to take statements into context. The point I was I was making is not just for some of us alone to make these decisions. We have to consult with the people. Yes, you offer them leadership. You offer guidance and leadership, but the people must have a say and a lot of times people know what they want. That’s all I’m saying. But your essential question, I agree with you.
WC: OK Sir Howard. This is the first program in the series. We’ll have some other programs coming up. Maybe you can you just give a rundown as to how we are going to conduct these other programs. We’ll have David Brandt, lawyer David Brandt in. We’ll have Jean Kelsick and some others. Maybe you can just hold a moment to take a final call. It seems as if we lost that call. They’ll probably try again. Let’s just go to what are we going to be doing for the next three weeks.
HF: And matters from week can be raised in another week. Next week, we’ll have a discussion on constitutions. The whole idea is to educate people on what a constitution is so that people will have this as a scheme, as a context. We are a building up a context so that when people go to talk about the Montserrat constitution, they have a background. Mr. Brandt will make a presentation. I will also be here, I hope as a kind of interlocutor. And we’ll also take questions from people, from the public. That’s what we hope to have next week. So we’ll even have more persons in the studio. Thank you.
WC: OK. Thank you very must, Sir Howard. That was Sir Howard Fergus and tonight you heard the first in the series on the constitution. Remember this is a 4-part series. You’ll hear the next the session next Tuesday at the same time 8:00 o’clock and we’ll be discussing for the next four weeks, the constitution. And as you know, tonight we heard about the historical context of the Montserrat constitution.
HF: And let me just thank our two parliamentary colleagues for their participation in tonight’s discussion. Thank you.
WC: Thank you once again, Sir. Howard.