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 scrutinised.
We’ve seen this headstrong approach in the decision to pursue the construction of a hotel at Rocky Point, Tobago, despite the signs pointing to a negative impact of such a hotel on the environment. To underscore the gigantic size of this latest misstep, the assertion, made without any public consultation, that changes will be made to the coat of arms to settle one colonial issue has unintentionally opened the wounds of another issue, an internalised “we vs them” rhetoric. The time that should have been spent discussing the NACCR recommendations was instead spent creating memes of possible designs as well as—almost inevitably—resorting to race-baiting talk.
Historian Dr Jerome Teelucksingh was quick to point out, with an equally perplexing suggestion to Dr Rowley’s, that tassa should also be incorporated into the coat of arms. This points to the perception that the pan is originally an Afro-Trinidadian instrument. It is expected that an academic historian should make these statements when scholarship on the pan states that “the creators of the steelband were generally young and Afro-Trinidadian” (Stuempfle, 1995), the instrument is “largely representative of the Afro-Trinidadian community” (Nathaniel, 2006), and it is “the first Afro-Trinidadian instrument” (Dudley, 2008).
Ziegler (2015) even argues through historical research on the National Association of Trinidad and Tobago Steelbandsmen (now Pan Trinbago) that “one of the Afro-Trinidadian arts that was promoted by the PNM government was the steelband”. Even the Tassa Association of T&T got involved. As an aside, who knew there was such an association? Good for them.
But the point is that all of this could have been avoided if Dr Rowley had made a smarter decision. In the grand scheme of things, the coat of arms may be aesthetically important, and a core representation of our national identity, but it does not compare to concrete and meaningful changes such as the Equal Opportunity Act, which outright denies sexual orientation as a basis for non-discrimination. As a citizen, I don’t care whether we have ships or pan on the coat of arms.
It won’t affect the price of bodi. I care more about the broader issue of ineffective governance which seems to solicit recommendations for constitutional reform as a weird way of flirting with voters. We had the opportunity to discuss constitutional reform—an opportunity we seem to be strategically given once every decade since the 1970s (1971 to 1974 under the Hugh Wooding Constitution Commission; the 1989 Hyatali Commission; the Manning Roundtable 2006-2010; and the People’s Partnership Constitution Commission 2013-2014).
Add the 2024 National Advisory Report to the growing list of tacit attempts to achieve constitutional reform that at this point seems to be an election gimmick. Dr Rowley must offer the public more than the bullish statement “we [the PNM] have enough votes in Parliament to do it [change the coat of arms]”. His party might have enough votes now, but that could easily change following the general election next year.
If Dr Rowley was hoping the decision to redesign the coat of arms would win him support for another term, he must now realise that one of the defining moments in his legacy as Prime Minister will be one of the most inconsequential changes to a national emblem. I might be proven wrong. Maybe the redesigned coat of arms will be even more beautiful than its former.
Maybe the Olympics will have a “Best Coat of Arms on the planet” competition and we’ll finally win an Olympic medal after all these years. On the other hand, maybe the best this Government could do was—in a time of uncontrollable crime, ineffective leadership and a flawed electoral system—claim an achievement that requires little effort: a redesigned coat of arms, something that has zero impact on people’s livelihoods. —The author holds a PhD from the University of Massachusetts.
.
