Robert Buddan, Contributor
THE GENERAL Secretary of the JLP, Karl Samuda, suggested that Benny White, councillor for Portland, could face 'serious sanctions' for joining a vote of no-confidence against the JLP Mayor, for what Mr. White and others claim is dissatisfaction with the performance of the Mayor.
Although this is a matter at the level of Local Government, it raises issues about the principle of Parliamentary independence and whether this principle should not be practiced at the Local Government level as well.
This principle was established more than 300 years ago. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 affirms that: 'The Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'.
This Westminster principle serves to protect the independence of the three branches of government, that is, the executive, legislature and judiciary.
INDEPENDENCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The security of members during their Parliamentary term is fundamental to Parliamentary independence and, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association says that:
(a) the expulsion of members from Parliament as a penalty for leaving their parties (floor-crossing) should be viewed as a possible infringement of members' independence; anti-defection measures may be necessary in some jurisdictions to deal with corrupt practices;
(b) laws allowing for the recall of members during their elected term should be viewed with caution, as a potential threat to the independence of members;
(c) the cessation of membership of a political party of itself should not lead to the loss of a member's seat.
It is the intention of Jamaica's political parties to entrench Local Government in our reformed constitution. Local Government councils are, in a sense, local parliaments.
Although the principles underlying Parliamentary independence are not generally acknowledged to apply to local councils the same principle of independence of the Councillor should now be made to apply in a new constitution as it applies to the parliamentarian.
Therefore, I ask Mr. Samuda to defend Mr. White's right to his own view of the Portland Council's leadership, independently of the party's view; and that serious sanction should not involve expulsion of Mr. Wright from the party.
The independence of the representative from pressure is vital if he is to do his work guided by his best judgment and fair conscience.
There are political considerations that Mr. Samuda should take into account as well. Should Mr. White be expelled from the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) he might simply join the People's National Party (PNP), giving the PNP a majority in the Portland Parish Council and the office of Mayor.
As things stand, Mr. White has the support of the PNP to be JLP Mayor with a PNP Deputy Mayor.
The other consideration is that in our political culture, the phrase 'serious sanctions' can be taken by political thugs to mean punishment by violence. That is something Mr. Samuda clearly does not mean. Indeed, there are reports that Mr. White has had to seek safety from persons who have been intent to intimidate or do violence to him.
Mr. Samuda himself has enjoyed this right of Parliamen-tary independence and respect for his views, despite differences with political parties. He crossed over from the JLP to the PNP and crossed back again. In neither case did he suffer 'serious sanctions'. He was not expelled from Parliament or from either party (having resigned in both cases), nor was he barred by either party from representing the constituency he had been elected to represent.
Mr. Samuda now enjoys the valued position of general secretary of the JLP and he should see to it that others, including junior representatives, enjoy the principle of independence that seniors enjoy. After all, many junior representatives became senior ones and, to take the case of Mr. Shearer, one became Prime Minister.
There was another notable example. Rose Agatha Leon won her first seat as a Local Govern-ment Councillor and later won a seat to the Legislature and became a minister of government while she was chairman of the JLP.
For reasons to do with party politics, she resigned from the JLP in 1961, joined the PNP in 1966, won a local government seat for the PNP in 1967, became deputy mayor of Kingston and St. Andrew and after winning a seat to parliament for the PNP, became a Cabinet Minister in the 1970s.
DISCIPLINE AND INDEPENDENCE
One of the criticisms of our two-party system has been about the tight discipline governing our parties and that this leads too often to straight party line voting.
As recently as 2003, the Clarke report on Parliamentary Salaries said, "Party discipline is almost absolute in Jamaica's Parliament and the executive can be unconcerned about losing a Parliamentary vote. With the very rare exception, MPs normally vote along party lines".
There is a place for party discipline since this is what coherence on the Government and opposition sides depends on. Similarly, we must be wary of the undisciplined MP who can vote against party colleagues as he pleases and might vote for the causes of special interests, including criminal interests, disguising his freewheeling opportunism under 'Parliamentary independence'.
There is clearly tension between party discipline and Parliamentary independence.
But parties must be reasonable in making their judgements on how to apply discipline. Parliamentary privilege exists for the purpose of enabling Parliament to effectively carry out its functions.
The primary functions of Parliament are to inquire, debate and legislate, and Parliamentary privilege assists and protects these functions. Parliamentary privilege serves to guarantee freedom of speech to the Parliamentarian so that criminal laws do not prevent him/her from speaking out on matters of the national interest. Political parties make this apply to party interest as well.
The Parliamentary Committee on Privileges seeks to preserve this freedom of speech.
However, some such committees can recommend that offending members be reprimanded, fined, suspended and even expelled where an offending MP violates the laws of the country and expects to be protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
The last time this happened in Britain was when Conservative Party member, Peter Baker, was thrown out of Parliament in 1954, after being convicted of forgery. The trend has been increasingly to soften privileges. There is no absolute privilege and since 1999/2000, even traditional privileges are in the process of being stripped away in Britain. Some have been absurd. For hundreds of years absolute privilege protected mad members of the House of Lords from being sent to a lunatic asylum.
SPECIAL TASK FORCE
It might be a good time for the Committee on Privileges in Jamaica to have a new look at Parliamentary privileges. The Minister of National Security is also the Leader of Government Business in the House. Minister Phillips has made clear that no one, including Members of Parliament, is above the law and that he is on a crusade to stamp out drug trafficking even where it exists among MPs.
He said, "As national political leaders and Members of this Honourable House, we have a duty to set the right example at all times". Without this, the House will lack the moral authority to succeed against crime.
In this light it becomes important to follow through on the resolution submitted to Parliament during the week by Morais Guy on behalf of certain PNP MPs to establish a special task force to investigate all questionable associations of politicians with corruption and criminality and to censure, expel or impeach those guilty of such associations. This must be done to restore the moral authority of Parliament and of politicians.
The investigation of Olivia Grange's relationship to a car driven by a 'don' of Spanish Town gives concrete reason to establish the bases on which an MP can be fined, reprimanded, suspended or expelled from the House, while preserving the essence of Parliamentary privilege.
The matter of Councillor White is now before the court and is being considered in the councils of the JLP. But it raises questions that Parliament should directly address.
If the Court rules that procedural rules were violated in the Portland Parish Council and the Mayor should be reinstated, he might simply be removed by proper procedures ultimately.
This will bring the issue back to the JLP. Should Miss Grange be cleared by police investigation, the incident would still remain hypothetically important for the Committee on Privileges to consider.
These cases suggest that we need to think more about protecting the independence of representatives and protecting the integrity and moral authority of the House, issues which go beyond the courts.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona: E-mail: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm
