We agree with Mr Bruce Golding that the decent and moral thing for Mr Norman Horne to do is to resign from the Senate, especially now that he has been accepted as a member of the People's National Party (PNP).
Mr Horne was appointed to the upper chamber of the Jamaican Parliament by the former leader of the Jamaica Labour Party, Mr Edward Seaga, acting in his then role as Leader of the Opposition. Eighteen months ago, after Mr Seaga decision to step down as JLP leader and to retire from active politics, Mr Horne, disenchanted with the new leadership, resigned from the party.
However, the Jamaican constitution does not recognise political parties, so someone elected to the House of Representative on a party ticket does not have to leave if he or she changes party allegiance. And neither does the constitution explicitly require that someone appointed to the Senate "in accordance with the advice" of either the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition has to vacate the seat if that person no longer enjoys the confidence of the holder of either office. Or more to the point, the constitution is silent on the issue.
In case of someone elected to the House of Representative on a party ticket it can be argued, with credibility, that having faced the electorate there is no moral obligation for the member to resign in the event of a falling out with his party.
But with an appointment to the Senate there is an implicit agreement, widely acknowledged by the community, that the member will carry the positions of their affiliated group, even if not with the same partisan tensions of elected members. In other words, Senators, in the context of the Westminster system, and the variations thereof, are not immune to the party Whip.
There are constitutions that obligate the appointment of independent Senators. That is not the case with Jamaica's, although there have been instances when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have made such appointments.
That was not the circumstance with Mr Horne. Having accepted his appointment without proviso, he gave an explicit undertaking to carry the positions of the Opposition. Having resigned from the Opposition party and changed his allegiance to the ruling party he has shifted the balance of power in the legislature, which could not have been what was contemplated by the Founding Fathers with their specific apportioning of Senate seats.
If a member of the Senate, who was not appointed as an independent member, can no longer support the policies and positions of the party led by the person who appointed him, the moral and decent thing to do is to resign. This is the situation that faces Mr Horne. Arguments of moral equivalency and what others may or may not have done are unfounded, for morality is not a concept to be blithely bartered.
The Norman Horne issue speaks for the need to proceed apace with constitutional reform, including for the expansion of the membership of the Upper House with the obligation for the appointment of independent members. We should begin to debate what ought to be the basis of such appointments.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY RELECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
