Members of the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) seem to have assumed a defensive posture with respect to public criticism of its activities.

There seems to be the thinking, at least coming from one member, Dr Nadine Spence, that the committee is being bullied. She made this observation in a recent interview on Nationwide News Network (NNN), resolving that the committee will not be bullied by those who oppose its work. The National Integrity Action group was clearly in her cross hairs. Its leader, Dr Trevor Munro, has been asking some important questions and making some searing comments about the committee’s operations. He indicated that his group will not be submitting any material to the committee at this time given, in his opinion, the veil of secrecy that seems to have enveloped the committee and the apparent dictatorial control of the reform process.

Dr Spence’s remark about bullying on NNN is a very sad commentary and one wonders to what extent this reflects the overall views of the committee members. Because if it is pervasive, this would be most unfortunate, pathetic, and injurious to the mandate, the very important mandate, that has been assigned to this august body. Unfortunate and pathetic, as this would be a clear indicator that the committee is not sufficiently seized of the task before it. Injurious to the mandate it has been assigned because the real causes of the constitutional reform process would be stymied and what may emerge from the deliberations of the committee are half-baked solutions to what should be radical constitutional change.

It is clear to me that the committee has reached a zenith of frustration. More than six months into its work it has nothing substantial to show that it really knows what it is about. It has stubbornly refused or otherwise ignored the plea from civil society groups to have open, live-streamed presentations in which the public can participate in real time. Instead, it has opted for piecemeal town hall-like presentations and the turnout to these events can hardly be described as robust and discussions eclectic. In fact, they come across as cosmetic exercises which give a veneer of public participation. You get the impression that the committee would prefer to be in a cloistered space where they could come up with decisions among themselves without the irritation of a few pesky meddlers like myself and Dr Munroe.

The committee’s initial intention to rush a decision for parliamentary vote put things in clear perspective. They only had to arrive at a decision to remove the British monarch and replace him with a ceremonial president with all the paraphernalia of the Westminster system left intact. The public, or at least some of us, howled no and they were forced to abandon this scheme along with the rushed time frame to accommodate it.

The committee members, like the politicians who appointed them, ought to understand that they are servants of the people. They are not there as demi-gods or semi-gods to listen to their own voices, thinking that they are brighter than the rest of Jamaica.

Why are they afraid to open the process to live, hearty debates as we do commissions of enquiry of national interest? Why do they operate as if they are a know-it-all cabal and that any final conclusion must have their imprimatur and not the people’s?

They do not seem to realise that the task they have been assigned goes to the very heart of who we are as a people, thus fundamentally revamping the document drawn in Westminster to “set us free” is mocked by all kinds of flaws that do not make Jamaicans the centre of the documents. The Jamaican people cannot remain on the periphery. The committee needs to get it in its thick skull that what we demand as a people is radical, fundamental change that puts the people in charge. Tinkering with a set of cosmetic changes and griping because you are challenged about this, simply will not cut it. Do not insult us by calling us bullies. Enough already.

As I said in a previous piece, Prime Minister Andrew Holness bears ultimate responsibility to ensure broad participation of the Jamaican public in the process. He needs to understand that his legacy is at stake here. It may be injudicious for him to express it openly, but he cannot be happy with the progress of the committee in the area of public transparency and participation. That you do not have live streaming of these events ought to be a significant bother to him.

Revamp the committee if he must, but we cannot endure the clown show that the committee is becoming.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; The Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.