- IAN ALLEN/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Dr. Paul Robertson (right), Minister of Development, leads Dr. Peter Phillips into the National Arena at the launch of his campaign for leadership of the People's National Party on January 15.Gordon Robinson, Contributor
THE IMPRESSIVE outlay of cash that was allocated to the Peter Phillips' campaign 'launch' (don't be unkind, he must not have been campaigning before), including the purchasing of a mind-boggling amount of live television time, succeeded in doing the impossible, which was to lure me away from my standard Sunday afternoon fare - the NFL play-offs.
Two things struck me immediately, but I will comment publicly on only one, namely, the clear majority of Members of Parliament who pledged their support to Peter Phillips in the most trenchant and unambiguous language. This has only highlighted for me the insidious nature of the current assault taking place on our constitutional arrangements.
Personally, I hold no brief for any politician, least of all one who has had a far better opportunity than any of us to address the nation's difficulties at close range and with authority for upwards of 16 years, with only limited success in insignificant areas and abject failure in many. But I do hold the rule of law near and dear to my heart, as it is all that binds the fabric of any diverse society together. It is, therefore, clear to me that this charade that is playing out before our eyes is nothing more than a deliberately conceived and well executed People's National Party (PNP) plot to brainwash us into accepting that political party interest takes priority over national interest every time.
Why do I say this? The relevant provision of the Constitution is set out below:
"70. Appointment of Ministers.
70. (1) Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Prime Minister he, acting in his discretion, shall appoint the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgement, is best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members of that House and shall, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among the members of the two Houses such number of other Ministries as the Prime Minister may advise."
The highlighted words are all-important. Firstly, the appointment of a Prime Minister is the function of the Governor-General acting in his discretion, which obviously means not on the advice of anyone. Secondly, the person he appoints is not necessarily the person who he is informed has the grudging support of the majority of MPs at the moment but the person who, in the GG's judgment, is "best able to command the confidence" of that majority.
AN UNNECESSARY CIRCUS
After Sunday's three-ring circus, one thing is clear. That person is Peter Phillips. And it cannot have escaped the current Prime Minister's attention that this has always been so. With that in mind, what earthly reason could the Prime Minister have for circumventing the Constitution of Jamaica by allowing an election of party leader by unknown party delegates to precede the process of prime ministerial succession? And why put the country through the wasteful expense, hostility and unnecessary hoopla which surrounds this PNP leadership race?
If the Prime Minister respected the Constitution, all he had to do was to resign as Prime Minister and permit the Governor-General to appoint Dr. Phillips as the next Prime Minister. Thereafter, the delegates could do as they liked regarding the party leadership, but I suspect that there would be none of this crass overspending or boorish hype in a nation whose business needs every moment of its leaders' attention at this time and, in a low-key affair, Dr. Phillips would also be elected party leader.
But the Prime Minister has decided, like Michael Manley before him, to put the question of the leadership of the nation in the hands of a small minority of the populace, and party hacks to boot. In that regard, I would like to take the liberty of reminding the Prime Minister that the Golden Rule is do unto others what you would like them to do unto you, and not do unto others what was done unto you.
THE NEXT STEPS
Let us take a moment to consider what is likely to happen should the nation not be as fortunate as in 1992 (when the person who would be the properly constitutionally appointed Prime Minister succeeded in the election for party leader) and one of the other three aspirants should get the delegates' nod.
I am prepared to place a large wager on the following occurring immediately thereafter. There will be a huddle of parliamentarians who will unanimously vote to support the successful candidate for Prime Minister and so inform the Governor-General. But this would mean that a majority of them would become blatant hypocrites (or worse) as their previously articulated public position would be that the winner of the delegates' vote was NOT ABLE TO COMMAND THEIR CONFIDENCE.
There is a world of difference between 'support' and 'confidence'. A Governor-General would be put in a pickle of monumental bitterness because he would be faced with the choice of carrying out his constitutional function faithfully or promoting party unity. In such a situation, Florizel Glasspole would know what to do.
But the question remains, why has the Prime Minister taken this unnecessary chance with our constitutional framework if not for the purpose of promoting party interests over those of the nation? And why has he coupled the gamble with this unseemly and apparently interminable over-expenditure and hype? Surely some of these funds, regardless of source, could be used in education or crime fighting? Or will there simply be a gas tax hike in the next budget to deal with those needs?
It cannot be that the PNP is gleefully taking two bites at a general election campaign cherry and a boost in the polls as a result of all this 'free' publicity.
No Prime Minister would be so cynical with the nation's fortunes. No Prime Minister would allow his party to 'run wid it' to this extent (with the prospect of a constitutional dilemma at the end of the road) unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
So, my fundamental question is, what is that reason?
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law.
