The State of the Bahamian Parliament

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

Two weeks ago I referred to the PLP government’s failure to have a prorogation and new opening of parliament in nearly four years.

In most parliaments this is an annual event which serves to celebrate the institution of parliament and also to give the government of the day an opportunity formally to outline its agenda for the year.

There might not have been a prorogation at all in the life of this parliament but for the fact that a new governor-general had been appointed and the government wanted to make the most of this.

Governor-general Arthur D. Hanna last week presided over the pomp and pageantry with obvious relish. Mr. Hanna has a keen sense of history and is rightly proud of the progress and stability of our Bahamas.

It is unlikely that we will see the opening of another session of this parliament since 2007 is an election year and this parliament will be dissolved perhaps no later than May. Nevertheless, it would be a good thing if both political parties would resolve to stage this important event in the political life of the nation every year.

* * *

On national ceremonial occasions those who watch on television or listen by radio are often offended by uninformed commentaries by some media persons.

Where church services are involved, for instance, some do not even bother to acquaint themselves with the meaning of certain ceremonies, nor with the proper identification of parts of the church’s interior such as nave or sanctuary, nor with the difference between congregation and audience.

Last week, however, Darold Miller of ZNS did a good job in his commentaries and made some important observations. One was that the word government has different meanings. Most often we use it to talk about the government of the day, meaning the executive branch controlled by the party which has the majority in parliament.

But government also refers in a broader sense to all the different branches of government: The sovereign, represented by the governor general; parliament, including governing party, opposition and independents; executive, principally the cabinet; judiciary; civil service, headed by the secretary to the cabinet; and, of course, the citizens who exercise control over the whole apparatus primarily by voting in democratic elections.

Incidentally, it used to be that in the procession to the Senate the constitutional leader of the opposition walked next to the prime minister. That was in recognition of the importance of the opposition in our system. This is the way it is still done in Britain but, unfortunately, it has been changed here and the leader now walks behind ministers.

Mr. Miller also referred to the primus inter pares principle of cabinet government, meaning that while all cabinet ministers are said to be equal, the prime minister is first among equals. Or one could say, in Orwellian language, that he is more equal than the others.

Mr. Miller might more accurately have referred to the prime minister not as “the king of the cabinet”, especially since this is a monarchy, but more as “the chairman of the board”, as Paul Adderley likes say. The prime minister has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of the government and the conduct of ministers.

This is an important point since it impinges on another concept: the collective responsibility of cabinet. Important decisions made by a government are presumed to have been made by the whole cabinet and not just by one minister, nor by the prime minister; and all ministers are bound by these decisions.

The first among equals principle is, however, being eroded. In Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair has been criticized for attempting to create a presidential office at 10 Downing Street. Some of Mr. Blair’s ministers were quite annoyed at being told what to do by one of the prime minister’s political appointees at Number 10. The appointee eventually became too big for his britches and had to go.

* * *

Before the opening last week the website Bahamas Uncensored (formerly Fred Mitchell Uncensored) said it did not agree with the opening of parliament being held outside and expressed the hope that the ceremony would be no more than an hour and the speech from the throne no more than 15 minutes.

The FNM government held the first outdoor opening in 1992 to make it accessible to more people, and that is a good thing. But Uncensored has a point. For one thing, the crowd that showed up last week was not exactly overwhelming and no doubt more people were watching on television.

A compromise might be to have the actual reading done outside only at the opening of a new parliament so that the bother of setting up the throne and seating will not deter the government from doing it every year.

Also 15 minutes would be too short for the speech having regard to the nature of Bahamian politics, but certainly nearly an hour is too long. After all, the prime minister and his colleagues are expected to expand on the contents when the speech is debated in the House of Assembly at its next meeting.

* * *

The current accommodations and facilities of our parliament are utterly inadequate for ceremonial occasions as well as for its day-to-day operation. The Bahamian people are not getting their money’s worth from their elected representatives because of this.

In a modern parliament members would spend more time on oversight committees which would constantly review the operation and performance of various ministries and departments of government, and committees appointed to deal with matters of special interest to the Bahamian people.

These committee meetings could be in public when appropriate especially when hearing from experts and members of the public on issues confronting the nation, including important proposed legislation. Obviously, all of this cannot be accommodated in the buildings which now house parliament.

We still hear people on radio talk shows complaining about the alleged shortcomings of our so-called Westminster system, but the truth is that we are to be blamed for not making full use of what we have. We can do a whole lot more to make our parliament more effective and we can do it without making a single amendment to the constitution.

I have suggested in this column many times before that this foundational institution of our system of government needs to be housed in a properly-equipped parliamentary complex designed for the purpose, something that will also be an architectural credit to the city.

In addition to adding lustre to the city, this will help give parliament the status and respect it needs to have in the minds of Bahamians as well as visitors, and it will enable our elected representatives to perform as they should in a modern parliament.

* * *

The opening of a new session should serve to renew in the minds of citizens and their representatives the importance of the institution. All members should resolve to move the institution steadily forward. That means, among other things, that the rules and conventions governing parliament should be observed and cherished.

It is shameful, for example, that in the last session Prime Minister Christie and his ministerial colleagues neglected to answer some 60 sets of questions which had been tabled by the opposition and an independent member.

There is no law, no constitutional provision, which can be used to force the government to answer questions asked by representatives of the people on behalf of the people. Nevertheless, it is contemptuous of parliamentary convention and a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the prime minister and his ministers.

Comments

[bahamianworldcitizen]

Yes, less 'pomp and pageantry' and more power to the people!