Is the political executive in Trinidad and Tobago too powerful?
Is the Prime Minister’s influence over the Executive
too great?
Is the perceived strength of the executive inimical to the
development of democratic institutions in T&T?
To all these questions most of the vocal advocates of constitution
reform would answer in the affirmative.
Indeed, one of their objectives in pursuing constitutional
reform is to curtail the powers of the Prime Minister and
the Executive.
All our five prime ministers, with the possible exception
of George Chambers, have been accused of possessing and displaying
dictatorial tendencies, perhaps none more so than T&T’s
first prime minister, Dr Eric Williams.
In his relentless pursuit of nationhood for T&T, Dr Williams
challenged and prevailed over many forces in colonial T&T
that were insistent on retaining the status quo and were,
therefore, openly hostile to the national movement.
For his efforts, Dr Williams became the victim of some of
the more scurrilous attempts at character assassination. Dr
Williams was unmoved, stayed the course, and was a principal
architect in laying the foundations for T&T’s evolving
democracy.
Much of the dictatorship rhetoric that enters our country’s
political discourse is more hyperbole than reality. Our people
recognise this, hence their refusal to take the allegations
seriously.
Dominant leadership is a feature of the T&T landscape.
We see it in our business organisations, our trade unions,
our sporting organisations, our steelbands, our religious
organisations, our social clubs, our credit unions. Often
enough, the leaders of these bodies remain at their helm for
extended periods and run them as fiefdoms.
None of these leaders see themselves as dictators or illegitimate.
Many of them exercise virtually absolute power within their
organisations.
It is rather ironic that some of these leaders purporting
to be representing the views of their membership support the
position that the powers of the prime minister and Executive
should be further constrained.
Their experience within the varied organisations referred
to above clearly suggests that culturally, our people are
not perturbed by strong leadership.
They accept it in almost every facet of their organisational
arrangements.
They see no reason why their political arrangements should
be any different.
Instinctively, our people recognise that T&T needs strong
leaders. Such leadership is absolutely necessary if we are
ever to contain the many and potentially threatening centrifugal
forces that are at large in our land.
Notwithstanding the above, popular acceptance of a strong
Executive must, of course, be based on its demonstrated commitment
to democratic principles. Any such acceptance of a strong
Executive would have been severely compromised had the country
been exposed to a consistent pattern of unrestrained executive
excess in our near 43 years of national independence.
It is to our credit that this has not been our practice.
It is the case that the state’s judicial arm has, on
occasion, struck down legislation as being ultra vires the
Constitution, or has restrained the Executive from implementing
certain administrative decisions on grounds of bias or because
the Executive may have exceeded its authority.
It is also the case that members of the Executive have found
themselves before the courts, charged with offences of varying
severity which allegedly took place during their tenure. In
some cases they have been acquitted, while in others the matters
are either being litigated actively or pending.
We can therefore conclude that our Executives have erred.
But no Executive has ever refused to implement decisions of
the courts even when they were adverse. Our Executives have
all been subject to the rule of law and therefore accountable.
In other words, our system provides recourse for those who
feel aggrieved at the hands of the Executive. Many so affected
have pursued their claims.
Perhaps most importantly, the judiciary in our time has demonstrated
its independence and not shown itself to be a creature of
the Executive.
The system is working.
Should we succumb to the calls to weaken the Executive and
in particular the power of the Prime Minister, we run the
distinct risk of making this institution appear impotent in
the eyes of our citizens.
Should they ever lose respect for the political executive
on such grounds, citizen frustration may push them into taking
the law into their own hands.
Their reasoning would be, employing their own frame of reference,
“the bossman would not or could not do it, we would.”
Let’s face it, the bossman syndrome is still an important
part of our culture.
In addition to citizen discontent, weakening the Executive
would also make it infinitely more difficult for this small
country to conduct its international relations with any degree
of decisiveness.
Things could have been different if the country had an Opposition
that truly grasped the significance of Parliament’s role
as part of T&T’s governance system. But an Opposition
that is determined to be obstructionist and with numbers to
block special majority legislation, will continue to revel
in its irresponsibility.
The public interest be damned. They feel they can do this
with impunity because the public, despite its articulated
fears, will not sanction them for their perverse obstructionism.
Given the state of the world today, there is legislation that
countries must enact to reduce their vulnerabilities both
from within and without.
Some of these provisions will inevitably give rise to legitimate
concerns. This is where good-faith political negotiations
become a democratic imperative.
There is, therefore, a strong case to be made for Opposition
reform to precede constitution reform.
In our system, an irresponsible Opposition and a reticent
public opinion will render any constitution ineffective.
