TWO SATURDAYS AGO, at the NAEAP Constitution Conference,
Prime Minister Patrick Manning backtracked on his constitutional
proposals for an executive presidency.
According to the Sunday Guardian last week, he is reported
to have said:
“I do not believe that T&T has as yet become sophisticated
enough to take the executive presidency to its classic form,
to its logical conclusion.”
In making this statement, he seemed to be saying that there
was the need for an interim step before getting to the logical
conclusion.
This could mean that he is still entertaining the idea of
an executive presidency, based on an election by members of
the House of Representatives, as opposed to a direct election
by the population.
By adopting the position that he did last week, he has effectively
taken the matter off the election table for the time being.
However, should the PNM win a special majority at the next
general election (ie 32 of the 41 seats), one has the feeling
that the interim version of the executive presidency will
be revived.
That version is currently housed in the Ellis Clarke draft
constitution.
The only fly in that ointment would be the independent senators
appointed by the President after a general election. Depending
on who those persons are, such a constitutional move may not
be guaranteed success, regardless of how many seats any party
may win, landslide or no landslide.
An interesting position adopted by Manning was his rejection
of the term limits imposed on the presidency.
In advancing the argument that good people may be eliminated
in a society with a small population, he cited the classic
argument that has traditionally been used to challenge term
limits.
This argument was also used in the United States to challenge
the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, when it was
proposed in 1947.
However, the amendment was declared ratified in 1951, and
Presidents Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989),
and Bill Clinton (1993-2001) have been the only three presidents
to date who have been affected by it.
President George W Bush is on course to complete his second
term by noon on January 20, 2009.
Term limits are a good thing, as they will bring about much-needed
change in the political process and force political parties
to engage in serious succession planning.
It is the only cure for any possible dictatorship that could
emerge. If there is one issue on which there is room to disagree
with Prime Minister Manning, it is on the issue of term limits.
They cannot work effectively in a parliamentary system, as
the life of a Parliament could last only a few days (eg there
were two general elections in St Lucia on April 6, 1987, and
April 30, 1987, with a Parliament having been convened in
between and dissolved soon after), or a Parliament could last
for a complete term of five years, as was the case with the
First Parliament of the republic that lasted from September
24, 1976, to September 24, 1981.
You could also have a situation where one does not know how
to classify a parliamentary term, such as was the case with
the Seventh Parliament of the republic that convened after
the 18-18 tied general election result, and never had a Speaker
of the House of Representatives.
If, however, one is going the route of any kind of presidency
(directly elected or elected by majority vote among MPs),
one must, of necessity, have term limits.
This should be made into a non-negotiable issue in any constitutional
reform that may be contemplated after the next general election.
Prime Minister Manning also criticised the proposal for the
introduction of any form of proportional representation.
In doing so, he was repeating the fears expressed by Dr Eric
Williams, some 33 years ago.
However, Williams feared proportional representation, because
he thought that it would make the PNM vulnerable to defeat
by virtue of not being able to command an outright majority.
Manning, on the other hand, expressed a fear that one ethnic
group would have permanent dominance over any other.
This suggests that he accepts the notion that all voting is
along racial lines. What he is not prepared to concede is
that proportional representation places greater emphasis on
the need for proper party organisation to mobilise voters.
The PNM is the best organised political party in the country,
and their ability to get their supporters to the polls will
always work in their favour under a system of proportional
representation.
Based on his comments, it is obvious that he is not prepared
to take that chance, and so, proportional representation is
dead in the water, once the PNM have anything to do with it.
Perhaps, the most scathing attack was reserved for the independent
senators. He indicated that he would eliminate this category
of senators altogether, if he were given the chance.
He argued that they were not independent. The reality is that
such a category does not exist. These are senators who are
appointed under section 40(1)(c) of the Constitution in the
discretion of the President; three from outstanding persons
from economic or social or community organisations and other
major fields of endeavour.
They are not in receipt of a party whip from either the Government
or the Opposition caucuses, which makes them free to speak
and vote however they wish.
This means that they are free to vote against the Government
from time to time. The Prime Minister seems uncomfortable
with that.
Where they may be challenged is on the ground that some of
them tried to make a case, last year, that they should not
declare their assets and liabilities to the Integrity Commission,
because of their limited importance in the political system.
If they are not that important, then they should not be there.
