THE EDITOR, Sir:MR HARTLEY Neita's article, "Changing of the guard" has not only provided some historical data on the subject. It has also provoked some serious thoughts.
Whilst the Constitution clearly states that it is the G-G who has the responsibility to appoint the Prime Minister, it has not provided any criterion except "in his own discretion and judgement" in Section 70. The G-G's authority does not even oblige him to consult with any individual, organisation or institution. However, it goes without saying that the appointment must rest on rationality, of which consultation must be a factor.
One such source would be the people's desire and choices as expressed in credible national polls. The Constitution does not recognise political parties. It says that the appointment must be made from the members of Parliament. That is to say, a JLP member could become the next PM even in a predominantly PNP Parliament.
The responsibility of the delegates is restricted to partisan considerations. Nonetheless, it should not be dismissed totally.
Nor does it appear that PNP parliamentarians are in a better position than the delegates because of the partisan element. Yet their interest must not be taken for granted. Likewise, that of the JLP parliamentarians because like PNP MPs, they represent constituencies as well.
The present manner in which the Prime Minister is chosen does not appear healthy for democracy. Since the Consttution stipulates that the office of the PM ought to be occupied by an MP, the selection would be more objective by taking the better two of three credible national polls.
I am, etc.,
LIONEL RUSSELL
sonny@cybervale.com
Ensom City, Spanish Town
Via Go-Jamaica
