Last week, I dealt with the issue of Tobago’s autonomy. This week, I am continuing in the same vein to demonstrate why the opportunity for placing Tobago and Trinidad on a “side-by-side-we-stand” basis must be completed this time around.
The political reality is the fact that Tobago has suffered an obvious political disadvantage by virtue of its union with Trinidad in the 19th century as a result of British imperial policy.
The long and short of that story is that Tobago had an assembly that was established in 1768 and that assembly and the concept of elected representation was removed in 1877, ten years before union with Trinidad. Later, during its union with Trinidad between 1887 and 1899 it was made a ward of T&T. Trinidad, on the other hand, was a relative backwater of the Spanish empire, and when it was ceded to Great Britain by virtue of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802 after its capture in 1797 by a British expedition, it was made a Crown Colony without any elected representation.
It was not until 1925 that elected representation under the New Representative system was given to the twin-island colony. For Trinidad, it was attaining elected representation for the first time under British rule. For Tobago, it was resuming the elected representation that it once had until 1877 when it became a Crown Colony like Trinidad.
Many Trinidadians are totally oblivious to these historical facts and often regard the issue of Tobago’s autonomy with the ignorance that accompanies such oblivion. One can only hope that the ensuing political debate in the Joint Select Committee of the Parliament will yield a consensual political solution that can redress Tobago’s historical disadvantage.
Under the revised arrangements that will clearly redress this disadvantage will be the need to review the Archipelagic Baselines of Trinidad and Tobago Order 1988, Notice No 206 of 31 October 1988 that was made by the Minister of External Affairs under Section 6(3) of the Archipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1986.
This will represent the modern-day rectification of the disadvantage because redefining the baselines around Tobago in relation to Trinidad will create the platform for honouring the words in our National Anthem that proudly proclaim “…..side by side we stand, islands of the blue Caribbean Sea…”
There can be no consideration of a new constitutional formula to grant what has been termed “full internal self-government” for Tobago without due consideration being given to the changes required to the Archipelagic Baselines of Trinidad and Tobago Order, 1988.
Based on the way in which Prime Minister Rowley spoke at the recent special meeting of the Tobago House of Assembly, one can deduce that the political will to make the changes is very present. The key variable that will have to be addressed will be the issue of political consensus that can put this matter to rest in a manner that will bring dignity to a new formulation of the State of T&T.
Last week, I alluded to the fact that only a federal formula would permit a realistic solution to the problem. Given all that has transpired over the 35 years since the re-establishment of the Tobago House of Assembly, one can only hope that a legal and political solution can be found that allows both islands to preserve their historical and cultural identities with dignity.
In addressing the federal question, one can only hope that the model of federation that was pursued in St Kitts-Nevis will not be copied. That model gave to Nevis an Island Administration, but did not offer the same to St Kitts. As a consequence, there is the federal government in Basseterre and an island administration in Charlestown.
Additionally, the constitution of St Kitts-Nevis gives to Nevis the right to secede after a referendum that requires a two-thirds majority of the voters in Nevis to approve it. There is no such arrangement for St Kitts.
There is a governor-general for the federation based in St Kitts and a governor general’s deputy based in Nevis. These arrangements are necessary in order to ensure that relevant legislative instruments receive the requisite approval from appropriate authorities who are empowered to act on behalf of the State.
In the case of Tobago, there has often been some concern expressed in various quarters about what would happen to legislative instruments approved by the Tobago House of Assembly and refused by a president in Port-of-Spain who may disagree. This issue cannot be treated lightly as the level of distrust between the islands is quite high.
Whether or not modifications will be required to the presidency to ensure that there is political concurrence with the advice of the political directorate of Tobago will be a matter for the joint select committee to consider.
The recent comments on the issue of no independent senators from Tobago would only have served to reinforce those suspicions, whether unfounded or not. Political perceptions on the Tobago issue cannot be underestimated, and the time has come for an open and honest dialogue on the subject.