As the Ninth Parliament of the republic opens tomorrow, there
will be much speculation about the challenges that lie ahead.
One of those will be the reform of the Constitution.
With both Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Leader of the
Opposition Basdeo Panday being in favour of an executive presidency,
one wonders whether the issue will make headway in this Parliament
after any form of mediated negotiations between both sides.
Perhaps, the fundamental issue that will lie at the heart
of this process will be trust. Can any agreement made between
Patrick Manning and Basdeo Panday survive the handshake?
Pursue appeal
The Crowne Plaza Accord in 2001 was the classic example of
how signing on the dotted line was turned into a political
fiasco, with Panday and the UNC being outfoxed and power being
taken away from them right under their noses.
Their response was to renege on the Crowne Plaza Accord and
prevent the election of a Speaker, in order to prevent the
convening of Parliament in April, 2002.
Perhaps, this time around one wonders whether the UNC is completely
sold on the idea of an executive presidency, or whether this
is something Panday and few of his loyalists want.
It will be interesting to see how Panday will handle this
as he commences his seventh stint as Leader of the Opposition.
Another challenge that will arise will relate to Panday’s
continuing court matters. He is facing a possible committal
for trial in the Magistrates’ Courts, and he has another
matter pending before the Privy Council.
If these matters go badly for him, he could face another situation
like the last time where he had to vacate his seat and he
was removed as Leader of the Opposition.
His failed legal battle to have his seat reinstated was his
own fault, because he did not want the PNM majority to do
him any favours by granting him an extension of time to pursue
his appeal.
His seat was declared vacant and he could not recover it,
because the quashing of the conviction against him by the
Appeal Court on his failure to declare a London bank account
did not remove the parliamentary requirement to seek the leave
of the House to avoid vacating the seat while he pursued his
legal avenues of appeal.
As the Parliament opens tomorrow, it has been announced from
President’s House that His Excellency “will be sharing
his own thoughts on matters he deems appropriate.”
This tradition of not reading a ceremonial Throne Speech,
as it used to be called when Trinidad and Tobago was a monarchy,
has become the hallmark of the presidency.
Apart from the first sitting of the First Parliament of the
Republic on September 24, 1976, the President has not read
a “Throne Speech,” which would have been written
by the Prime Minister to outline the Government’s legislative
agenda on which there would be a debate and a vote.
In the Parliament at Westminster, this is an absolutely essential
tool by which the Government is able to demonstrate that it
commands the support of a majority of MPs, thereby confirming
the correctness of the Sovereign’s opinion that the person
who she appointed as Prime Minister can really command the
support of a majority.
In the United Kingdom, governments have fallen because of
their failure to secure a majority vote on the Throne Speech,
as there is a convention that a Prime Minister must resign
if he or she fails to win the vote on the Throne Speech.
Such was the case in 1923 with Stanley Baldwin, who had availed
himself of the convention that every prime minister is entitled
to face the next Parliament, notwithstanding the outcome of
the general election.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the Throne Speech has come to be viewed
as a colonial anachronism when, in fact, it is a most powerful
political tool.
Successive governments after 1976 have been able to escape
having their legislative agenda being scrutinised by a full
debate in the House of Representatives and a vote being taken
at the end of that debate.
Instead, successive presidents have brought greetings to parliamentarians,
and these remarks have been printed as House Papers. There
has been no debate.
Debate speech
Questions have arisen as regards the danger zone for a President
to express policy positions, as opposed to possible policy
considerations or options, all of which are the domain of
the Cabinet on whose advice the President will act.
After the December, 2001, general election, when there was
an 18–18 tie, there was no ceremonial opening of Parliament.
No Speaker was elected and there was no visit by President
Robinson to Parliament to deliver any address.
If a Speaker had been elected, how would the Speaker have
exercised a casting vote on the Throne Speech if there was
a tie?
President Richards will, therefore, be following the traditions
established by Presidents Hassanali and Robinson not to read
a speech written by the Prime Minister that will then be subject
to debate and approval in the House.
It is expected that a motion will be moved after the presidential
address has been delivered for it to be printed as a House
Paper.
If we were dealing with an executive presidency, the President
would have been elected and the Parliament would have convened
without the fiat of the executive.
We would then be awaiting a State of the Union address by
the executive president to both Houses of Parliament.
As an issue of constitutional reform, which one will have
more value?
n the Prime Minister moving a motion to have the President’s
greetings and thoughts printed as a House Paper, or
n an executive president giving a State of the Union address,
which would be fiercely debated in the House and the Senate
(both of which would be elected) and out of which will come
measures initiated by either any member or by the President
in a battle between the executive and the legislature?
