Vernon Daley

Last week, Opposition Leader Bruce Golding nearly got into a fit on national television, following the Prime Minister's announcement of the election for August 27. He was taken by surprise and he showed it. Like most of us, he was preparing for a July poll, and so, he was angered that the Prime Minister had manipulated the electoral system to her own considered advantage.

It's that feeling of being shafted that perhaps explains why he rashly proposed that a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) government would, in its first 100 days in office, put a bill before Parliament to fix the election date.

Mr. Golding suggested that the constitutional amendment required to fix the election date could be accomplished by a simple majority in Parliament. This has, however, been disputed by Dr. Lloyd Barnett, the country's foremost constitutional expert. Dr. Barnett says the crucial provisions which give the Prime Minister the power to dissolve Parliament and call an election are specially entrenched and cannot b except by a special majority.

Even if Mr. Golding is right and Dr. Barnett is wrong, would the Opposition Leader really think it wise to venture down the path of unilateralism on this issue? Changing the constitution is a very sensitive issue that demands general agreement among the people of a country, if not consensus.

Attitude of arrogance

It's that same attitude of arrogance and one-upmanship that ran the Government into trouble over the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice and nowthe taxpayers are saddled with a US$30 million debt for an appellate court they do not use.

Mr. Golding needs to revisit this issue when he gets a quiet moment away from the hustle and bustle of the campaign trail. He might then take a different view of the matter.

I've said in this column before that I support a fixed election date, but if we are going that route, we should do it right and have an agreement about it as a country.

By the way, I see former Opposition Leader Edward Seaga suggesting that a fixed election date is unworkable in our parliamentary system of government. The biggest fault Mr. Seaga finds with the proposal is that it would not allow a government to be booted out of office before the election date, if it falls out of favour with the electorate.

This is a fair concern because the very foundation of the parliamentary system is predicated upon the people's confidence in the government. Once that confidence is ruptured, even if it's a day after the election, the people have that right to demand the resignation of the administration.

However, a fixed election date does not necessarily violate this principle. A way around this is to fix the date of the election, subject to a provision which would allow a government to be forced out of office before its term expires, if there is a successful no-confidence motion against it in Parliament.

Not breaking new ground

This is not breaking new ground. In fact, this is what Canada has done. Many people are not aware but the Canadian Parliament, in May this year, approved legislation to fix the election date for four-year cycles. The next election there will be held on October 19, 2009.

We can always find weaknesses in the proposal for a fixed election, but I still think it more democratic and sensible than having one person walk around with the date in his or her head, leaving the rest of us in an endless guessing game.