It’s entirely fitting, though still surprising, that in the aftermath of the 2024 Report of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform (NACCR), the major talking point would be something relatively irrelevant as a redesigned coat of arms. The committee tried to absolve itself by saying there was no recommendation to redesign the coat of arms, only that a chapter in the Constitution should recognise, amongst other things, the national instrument. In Appendix 1, however, the number 40 written public submission was “Coat of Arms redesign”.
Between these two, the smartest decision our leaders made was to put one and one together to make three and redesign the coat of arms by replacing Columbus’ three ships with a pan. Of course, other more meaningful constitutional change recommendations such as proportional representation, fixed election dates, campaign finance reform, and term limits for prime ministers will need a three-fifths or two-thirds majority, which the PNM does not have. This does not mean we completely remove these recommendations from public discussion.
Determined to show the population that the PNM can, in fact, achieve something, Dr Keith Rowley has decided to pick a very low-hanging fruit instead of aspiring to achieve meaningful impact. It was also a masterstroke in the art of political deflecting away from pressing issues. The intended change to the coat of arms is one problem: how that change was explained is another that must equally be s.