by Sir Arthur Foulkes
A few months ago a PLP friend suggested I was wasting my time writing about how our system of government is supposed to work, particularly how ministers of government are expected to behave, and the rules and conventions they are expected to honour. Nobody was listening, he said.
He was obviously right, up to a point, because some ministers of the previous administration continued to abuse the system and to act as if they had no idea of what was expected of them as ministers, or as if they simply did not care.
Sometimes politicians get good advice from those they regard as opponents and for that very reason the foolish ones can be counted on to ignore it.
Back in the day the PLP used to be severely criticized by Sir Etienne Dupuch and more than once decided not to do the right thing just because Sir Etienne had suggested it. On one occasion Sir Etienne told them how to go about an election case against the UBP. They did just the opposite and were thrown out of court.
Perry Christie’s administration was terminated in the recent election and no doubt that very attitude contributed to its demise. In their arrogant presumption of entitlement they rode roughshod over the constitution, the rules and conventions of cabinet government and their own code of ethics.
The process of public education about how we are governed must continue so that any debate about how we can make better use of the system, or make changes in it, will be informed.
Judging from some of the comments on radio talk shows and even in the print media, we still have a long way to go. Some people who advocate one change or another obviously have a limited understanding of certain aspects of the system and what it can or cannot accommodate.
One big temptation is to suggest importing into our system features of other systems that are not be compatible. For instance, it is easier to get rid of a prime minister in a properly functioning parliamentary democracy than it is to get rid of a directly-elected president in the American system.
Yet we still hear some people complaining that in our system the head of government, the prime minister, has too much power. The same people suggest that we should have a directly-elected head of government.
This will more than likely make the head of government more, not less, entrenched than a prime minister who is dependent on the support of a majority in parliament and in his party. I keep repeating that we have a very short history of cabinet government, so we have to look to older ones for precedents.
Margaret Thatcher was, some say, the greatest prime minister of Britain since Winston Churchill. But when her party thought she had become too overbearing, they got rid of her.
George Bush, some say, will go down in history as one of the worst American presidents. Yet the Congress, gun-shy after a botched attempt to convict a popular president for lying about a sexual affair, seems unable to summon the will to impeach Mr. Bush for misleading the country into a disastrous war.
* * *
The new FNM Government is making a significant step towards upgrading the office of Speaker of the House of Assembly. It has been foreshadowed as a part of the budget exercise that the salary of the speaker will be increased from $62,000 to $80,000, and it is about time.
Qualified and ambitious members of parliament have in recent times shied away from this office and have instead much preferred ministerial appointments.
In most cases those who served in recent times did so at great sacrifice to themselves because while they were not restricted from doing business or practising their professions as are ministers, the duties of the office have come to demand full time attention.
In the last term of the House the PLP majority apparently had difficulty attracting a qualified member and had to settle for someone who was obviously not qualified for that particular office.
Speaker Alvin Smith is far more qualified than his immediate predecessor. Despite the fact that he had sometimes been the victim of some bad decisions from the chair, Mr. Smith has the intelligence, attitude and temperament to make a good speaker.
The person who presides over and is responsible for the administration of the elected branch of parliament is indeed important to that foundational institution and to the whole society.
In Britain the Speaker of the House of Commons is referred to as the First Commoner of the Land, carries the title Right Honourable and is paid a salary on par with that of cabinet ministers.
The practice has also been that, once elected, a speaker resigns his or her party affiliation and is unopposed in subsequent national elections. Because of our smallness we cannot do that, but we can do more to enhance the office of speaker and shore up the independence of parliament.
The Parliamentary Review Commission appointed by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham recommended precisely that in its 2001 report. Sir Clement Maynard and I co-chaired the Commission and other members were Felix Stubbs, Raymond Winder, Ishmael Lightbourn and Baswell Donaldson.
On the question of salary, the Commission noted that the speaker was not in receipt of a House salary as were other members, but instead received only a lump sum salary of $62,000. This was $34,000 less than the total salary of a minister who was also a member of the House.
The proposed increase does not close this gap. Nor does it bring the speaker’s salary up to that of a minister of state in the House ($88,000), but it is a step in the right direction. No doubt the new administration will also address other issues raised in the Commission’s report for the overall development of parliament.
* * *
Despite complaints that the FNM cabinet is too big, the fact is that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has effected a long-needed rationalization and reduction of cabinet portfolios and has reduced the number of senior ministers from 16 to 12, including the prime minister who heads the Cabinet Office and Office of the Prime Minister (prime ministry) as well as the Ministry of Finance.
It is not easy to construct a portfolio with related matters as there are departments of government that can be placed under one ministry as well as under another.
For instance, it would seem that Aviation can fit just as well into the portfolio of the Ministry of Transport as in that of the Minister of Tourism; and there will always be a department or two that do not seem to fit neatly anywhere.
Some commentators have sought to compare our cabinet with that of Britain, rightly pointing out that there are only 23 ministers (most of them styled secretaries of state) in the British cabinet. But that is only half the story.
These ministerial heads are assisted by nearly a hundred junior ministers including ministers of state and parliamentary undersecretaries who do not sit in cabinet. A secretary of state, or senior minister, may be assisted by as many as five junior ministers.
Because we are small, it is not a bad idea that ministers of state are allowed to sit in cabinet along with their seniors.
This was truly an enjoyable article.
Thank you for adding me to your list.
Posted by: Ta'Shar Cuccurullo | June 13, 2007 at 07:13 AM