I write as a member of the public to make my contribution to the work of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform.

However, I am not going to be making any specific recommendations for constitutional reform – in the terms that are being currently requested of the public by the committee.

For example, the public is being asked for its views on questions such as: Who should choose the President? Should the Constitution limit the total number of government ministries? Should prime ministers be limited to two five-year consecutive terms in office?

The premise behind these and the many other specific questions is that the Constitution as we call it just needs fixing. Maybe so. Or maybe not. Maybe it should be scrapped completely and replaced with something else – something different. We should find out what the people really think.

To do this, instead of the committee posing specific questions about how to fix the Constitution, I have two suggestions for the methodology of the committee that, if implemented, would, I believe, indirectly result in major contributions to the results of the work of the committee. My first suggestion is this.

Stop asking people for what specific changes they would like to see made to the Constitution. Instead, ask individuals, groups and organisations to state/describe what they would like to see available and achievable for the quality of life for all of the citizens of this country. Followed by why they believe what they are describing is not fully, currently available in this country. And then ask what they believe should be done to correct the situation.

A great deal of useful information will come out of answers to these questions. And here is where my second suggestion is generated.

Either on its own or through/with the expertise of other people ­– long available in large numbers in this country – using the information from the feedback from the public, the committee should then prepare a document listing what the people want and, most importantly, from its analysis of the public’s responses, how best it is assessed that the people’s objectives may be achieved – through specific items of constitutional reform or whatever other means may be appropriate.

The committee will have achieved its objectives and more.

ASHTON S BRERETON

Champs Fleurs