The rules by which a political entity is governed are invariably of interest and
significance, particularly to those who are likely to be affected by such rules. This is
true of states, colonies, territories, or by whatever name the given political entity is
described. Invariably, too, such rules, collectively known as a constitution, are
contained in a single document, or a series of documents, in addition to a body of
conventions, customs, and practices.1

 The form and scope of a constitution are always influenced by the historical
circumstances in which the political entity in question evolved, and the status which it
enjoys among the international community of nations. Thus, those which enjoy full
political status as independent states are normally more advantageously placed to be
creative and innovative in the shaping of their constitutions than those that are
colonies or territories.2

 Constitutions derive their significance, in part, from the belief that they are likely
to exert a powerful influence on the level of social, economic and political
development achievable in the polities they have been designed to serve. This is
seen as important particularly in those entities which are regarded as evolving, or
possessing the capacity to evolve, to higher political forms and statuses. In this
regard, under British colonial practice, particularly after the second World War, the
notion developed that colonies would move by a series of incremental steps to the
ultimate status of independence. Each step in this evolution was to be marked by
adjustment to the relevant constitutional instrument to confer on the colony involved a
greater measure of responsibility in conducting its internal affairs.3

 While it is true that there are important differences between British and
 American practice as they relate to non-independent entities, it is nevertheless
 possible to identify certain broad similarities in such practices. Generally speaking,
 under both sets of practices, political and constitutional advances were achieved after
 agitation and pressure from sections of the local populace who recognized the
 advantages of more responsible government, and a greater measure of self-governing
 capacity, inhering in the local population.4

 In addition, both sets of practices would appear to recognize the possibility of a
 number of elements operating as a limiting factor on the extent of the political and
 constitutional development achievable by given colonies and territories. This is so
 notwithstanding that international sentiment and law are generally hostile to the
 perpetuation of colonialism as a practice, and the failure to alter the status of such
 entities perceived to be in a colonial status.5 Under both sets of practices there are in
 existence in the Caribbean non-self-governing and/or non-independent entities.6

 In most instances, size would appear to be a decisive factor in the perpetuation
 of a non-independent status, or in affecting the degree of self-government achievable.
 Strictly speaking, though, there is, in general, no prescribed size for the achievement
 of an independence or self-government status.