Constitutional Reform

The decision to reform a constitution is very important in today’s society as it helps to bring about good governance and development to one’s country. Good governance is about the processes for making and implementing decisions. It is not about making correct decisions, but about the possible process for making those decisions. Throughout the Caribbean there have been demands for constitutional changes however there is a contending view regarding the process in which these changes should take place. This paper will focus on the views of radical and moderate proposals which holds the two, approaches as to how the constitution should be reform and seek to identify the most appropriate one.

Constitutional reform refers to the process of modifying

A constitution is the body of law containing rules which determine the direction of the state. It is instructive to note that the constitutions of Caribbean independent states were primarily produced by British civil servants at Whitehall, with little input from Caribbean publics. At independence almost all Commonwealth Caribbean countries adopted the parliamentary majoritarian political system with its dual executive power structure in the head of state and head of government.

Radical approach to constitutional reform is one of the approaches that can be taking to make changes to the constitution. Advocates of the radical line of thought argue the need to change the British parliamentary system to a presidential type of democracy. It is argued that the British parliamentary system is no longer working. They address the proposals in terms of two arms of the state: the executive and the

Despite their differing views both parties agree that in order for a country to have good governance some changes to the must come in play. The radical view holds that the Caribbean countries should get rid for the British Parliament system and adopt a more presidential system like that of the United States while the moderates view state that instead of changing countries should make changes to the current system in order for it to suit the needs of the people. In my view the moderated approach to constitution reform would be more appropriate for Caribbean countries. Argument against the present system lies between the abuse of power and the increasingly high level of political corruption along with other aspect of the handed down system such as the high court of appeal therefore making amendment to the areas of concern will be much better than changing the system itself. Changing the system can be more detrimental to a countries as the new system may not be effective to that countries political culture, policies and procedures regarding trading and the overall relationship with other countries. Guyana for example is one country few county that manages to engage in meaningful constitutional reform but however continues to struggle with a myriad of socio-economic and political