Abstract

This article argues that the common law constitution can be thought of as the working out of a tradition within which notions of gender, national identity and citizenship are conveyed and secured. It looks at the making and interpretation of Commonwealth Caribbean Constitutions in the latter half of the twentieth century. It shows how the language of the common law constitution was employed to bolster the competence of West Indian male nationalists to govern and to legitimize measured progress for women. The article also explores the fundamental role played by common law constitutionalism in the conceptualization of Caribbean constitutions as evolutionary and the veneration of ordinary existing laws as an expression of valuable norms about gender relations. Narratives of continuity as well as discontinuity are identified with the Caribbean common law constitution. As judicial decisions on gender equality become more liberal, problematic earlier decisions are categorized as ‘badly decided’, signifying a clean break from the past and the abandonment of harmful practices. This article claims that these narratives of discontinuity are associated with the conventional faith in the common law's capacity for change and that they substantially conceal the force and persistence of gender asymmetries in Caribbean societies and the ideologies that have enabled and sustained them