In just about every democratic country in the world, in whatever form its government comes, there is a system of checks and balances, aimed at ensuring that the governing clique does not operate with impunity. One of those checks is intrinsic in the manner in which the government is styled. Again, in most cases, there are executive, legislative and judicial branches. In some cases, the executive and legislative branches are separate and distinct. In our case, however, as is the case in the British Commonwealth, the executive and legislative are practically one and the same.
By saying ‘one and the same’, I am referring to the fact that the same people who form the cabinet (the executive), are the same ones who sit in parliament and, as legislators, introduce and pass laws that govern the country. Some of the differences between our system and, say, the American model are:
Among the cabinet, the president and vice resident are the only ones who are elected; everyone else is appointed.
No member of the cabinet, except for the vice president, sits in either the House or the Senate. The vice president is the president of the senate but votes only when he is needed as a tie breaker.
In general, democracies work well, as long as the spirit and letter of their constitutions are adhered to. The purpose of a constitution is to establish a government and to determine how that government ought to function. It protects the weak from the strong; the minority from the majority; establishes limits on the government’s authority as well as the rights of the citizens.
The constitution is the supreme law. Any law that is passed subsequent to its adoption must conform to it or it will be found, in any challenge in the courts, to be unconstitutional. If, for example, the constitution says that an individual has the right to speak, any law that seeks to remove that right, is unconstitutional and would quite easily be defeated once challenged in court.
The way I see it, it is like the Decalogue…The Ten Commandments found in the book of Exodus, chapter 20 of the Bible. It names only ten principles by which the children of Israel ought to have lived but in passages such as are found in the Book of Leviticus, there are detailed laws as to how they ought to have gone about conforming to the Decalogue. Rules having to do with what to wear, what to eat etc.
Similarly, our constitution contains the broad outlines that set up the government and provides some basic guidelines as to how certain things ought to be done. I said ‘certain things’ because it was impossible for it to have contained everything, especially in light that there is room for the many different pieces of legislation that will, of necessity, be enacted over time. As a matter of fact, comparing the number of words contained in our constitution to that of the US, ours is a massive document, but it does not contain everything.
I was a founding member of staff at the Social Security office in 1978 so I can speak with at least a modicum of understanding. There is a Social Security Act which established the institution and gave broad outlines but there were several regulations that went along with it to give specific directions to the various activities that took place there. was assigned to the Benefits Section but there were others like Records, Contributions and Finance, just to name those that I can remember. There were the Benefits Regulations, Finance Regulations etc., all of which were ancillary to the Social Security Act.
I am making reference to what one might regard as ancillary sources to get to the point of this essay. Our system of government provides, for remedial action to be taken within the parliamentary setting, in the case of a leader or a government that is out of control and is not governing in the best interest of the people and the country. Elections, as we have seen time and time again, play their roles on a periodic basis. In our context the constitution says that they are to be held every five years and specify that if, as happened in 2009/10, an extenuating circumstance or set of circumstances were to make it impossible to meet the 5-year deadline, the very limited time within which they must be held.
However, after an election, things can happen; systems may break down and protocols may not be adhered to; things that give rise to the need for parliament to take measures against a specific member of cabinet or the government as a whole. That is another way of saying that a scheduled election is not the only means by which to remove a government.
In our case, the measure is called a Motion of No Confidence. In the US context, there are two that I am aware of; one is called impeachment while the other is known as a recall.
Let us look at two relatively recent examples coming out of the US:
During president Richard Nixon’s first term, in the lead up to his campaign for re-election in 1972, he was involved in a series of actions that came to be known as Watergate. He was about to be impeached and could have been removed from the presidency and spend some time in prison. Shortly before the commencement of the proceedings, he resigned. However, had he not been granted a full pardon by his successor, he could have faced jail time.
The second instance is that of President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinski matter. He was impeached but his deeds did not rise to the level of “…high crimes and misdemeanors…” as the standard requires.
Former California Governor, Gray Davis, was removed from office in a recall. The same electorate that elected him, went back to the polls, midstream, and removed him. His removal made the way for Arnold Schwarzenegger to become governor.
Our opposition parliamentarians, being displeased with the manner in which the country is running, took the step available to them on December 11, 2012, when they filed a motion of no confidence, cataloging the reasons for their lack of confidence.
Government, quite understandably, does not wish to have this motion debated so it has taken to all sorts of tactics, the final being that the matter is sub judice. Of course, the matter became sub judice when, after many months of inaction by the government, the opposition parliamentarians asked the court to declare whether or not their rights have been infringed by the prolonged delay.
The reason that the government gave, as it continues to, is that the constitution does not give a time frame within which to hear it. That, of course, is a red herring because the construction contains nothing but a passing reference to motions of no confidence. What it says is that, in the event of a successful motion of no confidence, the prime minister must exercise one of three, within three days:
Resign
Have the Governor General dissolve the House and call fresh elections
Be removed by the Governor General
It does not even pretend to give guidelines on motions of no confidence because it was written with the knowledge that there are other documents whose authenticity the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis subscribes to. There are conventions and precedents that we recognize, all giving the guidelines to which we have agreed, as a nation.
Let’s take the stupid example of the mace. It is a stick with a big head, topped with a crown. It is an inanimate object that has to be carried to its resting place in parliament and has to be guarded by a senior police officer during all sittings of parliament. The thing about the mace is that if it is not sitting in its cradle during the sitting of parliament, nothing that happens there is of any effect. However, the word ‘mace’ appears nowhere in this much-vaunted constitution.
The parliamentary procedure that we observe is another matter. We see particular protocols observed. If, for example, a member is on his feet and another rises on a point of order, the one who was standing first is required to take his seat. In other words, only one person should be standing at any given moment when presentations are being made.
We observe that every statement made in parliament must be addressed to the Speaker because members are not allowed to address each other. Neither are they allowed to refer to each other by name but in a manner that tags them to the constituencies they represent. Yet our all-important constitution says absolutely nothing about any of that.
That silly-looking crocus wig that the speaker wears is not mentioned either. Why then does the government continue to make these reference to the constitution that they know was not designed to give guidelines on everything? Is it an effort at muddying the waters? Is it that although they know that they cannot fool everyone, they will manage to fool some? Whatever it is, it is, to me at least, a futile effort at justifying having earned the dubious distinction of being the only government in the entire British Commonwealth to have delayed hearing a motion of no confidence for more than a month.
So now that its folly has been laid bare for all the world to see, government is now suggesting that the constitution needs to be amended. Well, I totally disagree. I disagree on grounds that amending the constitution for this reason would legitimize what government has been doing to ignore and foil precedence that have long been established among the countries of the British Commonwealth. Even in the Caribbean in general, and the OECS in particular, over the past year, there were numerous MONCs that were filed, debated and voted on. Some of them were in countries with constitutions that, like ours, specify nothing by way of procedure when it comes to MONCs. In one particular case, the turn-around time was a single day.
It is time for government to stop burying its head in the sand and face the music.
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
