Robert Buddan

Bruce Golding delivered an election campaign conference speech to party and public alike last Sunday. The thrust of the presentation was that people were tired of the failures of government and country and needed an approach that was bold, new and different. Mr. Golding offered himself and his party as the team that could provide this.

In elaborating on this offer Mr. Golding said, 'A mere change of government will not be enough to repair the broken dreams of independence'. Jamaica needed a 'fundamental change in the system of government'. Mr. Golding said that the party's manifesto will be out soon and more details of how it would govern will be available then. For the time being he provided some details of the new system of government he had in mind.

Gridlock

This new system of government would not be the American-type separation of powers system. The party, Mr. Golding said, had agonised over that model and found that it, too, has its weakness. The weakness is not the possibility of gridlock, the reason Mr. Seaga had objected to it. Nor is it divided government, over which Americans complain. For Mr. Golding, the problem is the opposite collusive government when the excutive and legislature are dominated by the same party. But this is this same problem he, has with the Westminster system so the same solution he has for the Westminster system would apply to collusion in the separation of powers system.

Nonetheless, the system of government he prefers would be a modified Westminster system. There are three particular elements that would be new and different:

(1) chairmanship of parliamentary committees by the Opposition; (2) fixed date for elections; and (3) term limits for the chief executive.

Jamaica's most important parliamentary committee is the Public Accounts Committee. The Opposition already chairs this. The other committees are the Finance Committee (of the whole House, on which the Government by definition has a majority), the Committee on Standing Orders (chaired by the Speaker who is also elected by the majority in the House), and committees on the House, Privileges, and Regulations.

The responsibilities of the last three have less to do with making Government accountable to the people and more to do with making Parliament accountable to parliamentarians.

Therefore, the changes Mr. Golding proposes would not make the system of government more accountable to the people.

Mr. Golding does say that his system is to make government more accountable to the Opposition. He has not said if the Opposition would be the majority on parliamentary committees, which is how committees would get real power. But even then, an executive supported by its majority in parliament would ensure that the GovernmentÕs position stands and the power of the Opposition on committees would not translate into the power of the Opposition in parliament.

Changing the Standing Orders of the House would not go as far to empower parliament or the Opposition in parliament as Mr. Golding suggests. The Report of the Constitutional Commission over ten years ago already pointed the way to improve the effectiveness of parliament. It recommended an enlarged Senate, the principle of proportionality, a public defender, and impeachment. [The JLP has been a part of the bi-partisan constitutional agreements. Mr. Golding should work with what the parties have already agreed rather than opening up new issues that they have not discussed.] Further to these changes, the Clarke Committee recommended a new and modern parliamentary building with proper facilities for parliamentarians to do their work.

Parliament and the Department of Government's Centre for Leadership and Governance have started an internship programme to support the research needs of parliamentary committees.

In addition, Government makes sure that policy and legislation go through a consultation process with stakeholders so that government does not dominate the process as is widely believed. Parliament is open to the media, the Opposition chairs the PAC and the government has established a contractor general's office to investigate the award of contracts. There are other proposals coming out of government's public sector modernization and local government reform programmes to strengthen the oversight capabilities of the Auditor General's Department and to duplicate public accounts committees across Parish Councils.

The view taken is that politicians in parliament, whether government or Opposition, do not have a monopoly on competence to ensure accountability and accountability cannot be restricted to a process between government and Opposition alone. Accountability must exist at all levels of government, national and local, and must be the responsibility of elected bodies and bodies independent of both government and opposition. The Opposition too must be accountable.

Fixed Terms

The JLP favours fixed election dates and term limits for the prime minister. Both require changes to the constitution, which again must involve bi-partisan and national discussion. Anyway, it is odd that Mr. Golding is proposing fixed election dates while calling for elections now, well before the government's constitutional term and although neither party's manifesto is ready. Elections are not just opportunities for parties to win power. They are opportunities for the electorate to know what the parties stand for.

Fixed election dates are consistent with separation of powers. Since neither the executive nor the legislature can dissolve the other, both must serve their full terms and the law therefore fixes those terms. Parliamentary democracy is quite different. Since the executive is a committee of the legislature it can be recalled by the legislature at any time causing parliament to be dissolved and new elections called. This puts government on constant alert to serve the people and parties on constant readiness to face elections. Accountability goes beyond executive and legislature to the people.

It is ironic that Mr. Golding wants to strengthen the Opposition on parliamentary committees but proposes to remove its greatest power in parliament, the power to force the dissolution of parliament or to take advantage of government's decision to dissolve parliament by winning power for itself.

Term limits are found in presidential and semi-presidential systems. This is so because separation of powers prevents legislatures from recalling executives and executives, using their command of the armed forces and administration, have tended to make themselves presidents for life or at least for the long haul. Term limits exist in many different forms: term limits for party leadership; and term limits for chief executives of one to seven years, either as consecutive or non-consecutive limits. Mr. Golding needs to tell us what he has in mind.

Ultimately, a new system of government must improve the quality of democracy, governance and people's lives. It must empower people, not just the political class in parliament. There is no evidence that countries with term limits perform better on corruption, political stability, poverty, or economic growth. Term limits are popular in Latin America, which as a region, scores lower on human rights and human development than the CARICOM region with its parliamentary systems.

At the end of the day, all of these options must become part of our constitutional reform debate, which is a bipartisan process. Mr. Golding's ideas are interesting but as he said in his inauguration speech as party leader, 'one hand can't clap'.

[Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm]