As T&T witnesses unprecedented scenes in its political
evolution, there all kinds of concurrent developments that
are beginning to form a powerful and intoxicating cocktail
that may cause drunkenness at democracy’s door.
The ridiculous mess within the UNC has now become a sick joke,
due process and all. The controversy surrounding the Chief
Magistrate and the Chief Justice threatens to rip the Judiciary
apart with the potential to spread its poison to the Caribbean
Court of Justice as a precedent for the future. The public
outcry over the President’s Grounds and the aluminum
smelter plant underscores the powerlessness of communities
in our political system to influence public policy.
There were, however, two reinforcing moments last week for
democracy, namely the announcement of the possibility of an
early general election and the real prospect of constitutional
reform.
Given the present configuration of political parties and feuds,
the current odds seem to favour the PNM being returned to
power and Prime Minister Manning having his mandate renewed.
With the opposition lampooning itself at the moment, there
is no effective watchdog operating in the society. The PNM
has an easy pass with the compliments of the UNC who cannot
figure out who is their leader (as they have two) from their
own rules (as they cannot decide where correspondence should
or should not go).
While a decent technocrat like Winston Dookeran is demonised
by a split in the central executive of the UNC, one cannot
lose sight of the fact that there are elements in the UNC
who want to direct, control and even clothe the political
leader.
Such arrant nonsense now passes for political debate and reveals
they do not want a leader, but rather a puppet. As an alternative
to the PNM, they should stop complaining about PNM Members
of Parliament wearing balisier ties or paying a portion of
their salaries to their party if this is the way they want
to proceed.
The last time a UNC central executive turned against its own
political leader in 2001, the party ended up in opposition.
It is obvious the lessons of history are not about to be learnt
any time soon.
Dictatorial tendencies can always emerge easily as power has
the capacity to bring a certain prestige feeling. The thirst
for power is even more dangerous than the capture of power
itself.
With the confusion in the UNC reaching new heights, the former
chairman, Basdeo Panday, has now hinted that he is willing
to return. This could mean that somebody has to go. For the
time being, Panday cannot assume the post of Leader of the
Opposition, which begs the question of what will he come back
to do ?
While standing at democracy’s door to observe all of
this, there is also the spectacle of police officers searching
the office of the Chief Justice. This spectacle has caused
upheavals within the Judiciary and the legal fraternity. The
more damaging aspect of this is the precedent that has been
set for the future and the potential for a spread of such
activity to the Caribbean Court of Justice which is housed
in Port-of-Spain.
What approach will a future political directorate adopt with
a future Chief Justice ? How will the CCJ be handled if any
allegations were to be made against its Chief Justice or any
of its judges ? One can remember not so long ago when a former
Chief Justice and a former Attorney General had public displays
of confrontation over the issue of financial accountability
and parliamentary scrutiny in relation to judicial independence.
Oh, how one yearns now for such scrutiny! It is a pity it
was beaten out of the subsequent amendment to the Constitution
in Act 29 of 1999, which eventually excluded the Judicial
and Legal Service Commission from parliamentary scrutiny in
section 66C of the Constitution because of political compromise.
Who can inquire into what is happening between the Executive
branch of government and the Judicial branch of government
on behalf of the public for their benefit?
This is where parliamentary scrutiny is such a vital tool
and we need it now more than ever in the absence of a constitutional
authority to serve as a mediator between the Chief Justice
and the Prime Minister.
Indeed, parliamentary scrutiny is one of the bedrocks of the
Constitution that was drafted by the Principles of Fairness
Group earlier this year. One hopes it will also be a bedrock
of the proposed constitution being drafted by Sir Ellis Clarke
for Prime Minister Manning.
One can only hope somewhere between the Principles of Fairness
Constitution and the Manning-commissioned draft from Sir Ellis,
the doorpost that holds up democracy’s door will be strengthened
with materials like parliamentary scrutiny and a greater separation
of powers between the Executive and the Legislature.
An Executive presidency can work in this country if it is
established in a manner that ensures control over the Executive
branch of government by the President and simultaneously denies
him/her control over the legislative branch. As it stands
now, our parliamentary system gives the Prime Minister control
over both the Executive and the Legislature.
Prime Minister Manning’s proposal for an executive president
now provides constitutional drafters with the opportunity
to reduce executive power and enhance the power of the legislature.
There is hope for democracy in this country as the opportunity
for constitutional reform and a general election present themselves
to the national community.
The view from democracy’s door may appear to be grim
at the moment, but the hope that comes with constitutional
reform is a shining light for those who are still prepared
to believe that door will remain open and not be closed.
