The President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Max Richards has to use his initiative and take the bull by the horns to bring some semblance of sanity between the heads of the executive and the judiciary.

The former President A.N.R. Robinson has already set the precedent by demonstrating that the office of the President is not really ceremonial as touted by the armchair politicians and political scientists.

Remember, when he put down the “wuk” on the United Natitonal Congress (UNC) after the 18/18 deadlock by appointing the People’s National Movement (PNM) to assume responsibility of the government in the midst of what was considered to be the most crucial constitutional crisis this country has experienced?

Attorney General John Jeremie is no saint and although he’s “coasting” a sanctimonious role in the scandalous affair, it’s important to contemplate that he is a PNM Senator appointed to the Upper House.

The sordid incident has dominated the electronic and print media, as both warring factions attempt to manipulate the Press to gain public sentiments in advancing their varying versions of the episode.

The battle to “blow” the minds of the masses has been thwarted by Jeremie’s reading of the riot act as a vain attempt to muzzle the free Press, by restraining media officials who I presume want to deal with the subject matter objectively.

As long as you are not prepared to be a part of the marching band and willing to blow the PNM trumpet in the public domain, media houses run the risk of being subjected to legal proceedings or, in other words, political interference.

Perhaps, the Prime Minister considered that the simplest technique to cope with some of the critical problems challenging his administration is to signal constitutional reform with the emphasis on replacing the parliamentary system with a presidential structure of government.

Even though it’s perceptible that the Principles of Fairness Constitution in which their agent Hamid Ghany propagates an executive President, up until now it has no significance as it underscores the powerlessness of the citizens and communities, as they were unable to participate in the formulation of the draft constitution.

My consternation is that Patrick Manning is adopting a similar approach as the nation has been informed that he has already commissioned a draft from Sir Ellis Clarke.

Members of the Principles of Fairness Committee acted just like the government officials who these armchair politicians criticise for not consulting the masses on issues of national importance.

Consultation is the bedrock governing the problem of fairness and efficiency; and once the masses are unable to participate, it gives the impression that they are being “set-up” by the technocrats.

Jump high, jump low the citizens’ expectation at the end of the day is that the policies should be fair and that people in the country should be treated in the way they deserve.

Last, but not least, the policies should be efficient, producing the greatest good at the least cost.

However, the major test of fairness is justice and the two important factors that guarantee this in any society are the preservation of basic rights and the principles of due process.

The right to survive, the right of free speech and the right to privacy make up the security that is a necessity in any constitutional reform.

Since the PNM government has indicated that the wheels are already in motion for constitutional amendments and that they would also be considering the draft constitution by the university technocrats, then voices of the people crying in the wilderness are falling on deaf ears.

But if they want the blessing of the common folks, they must consider the following proposals: The new constitution should not break drastically with the long-standing traditions of government, it should be relatively easy to change and the constitution should be flexible so that the holder of power will find it personally advantageous to do what the rank and file needs from them.

The new constitution should insure that the holders of power should find that they are personally rewarded when they do the biddings of the masses and personally punished when they do not.

Like any ordinary layman, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the changes from parliamentary to presidential system, for the reason that it concentrates executive power on one individual while a parliamentary system gives executive power to a party or a coalition of parties.

The profundity of the debate surrounds the issues of the separation of powers and the differences between the two systems in how independent the executive and the legislature are of each other.

However, the two major flaws in the presidential system are: when voters or constituents cannot pin the responsibility for policy on any particular official, their electoral choices become less significant.

The second weakness is the haziness of responsibility when public officials do not have clear responsibility for a policy, they may literally begin to behave irresponsibly.