The Tribune

It is unfortunate many in the media as well as many academics do not understand the basic tenets of our system of government. Correspondingly, we often get our language and our thinking muddled and just plain wrong in constitutional matters.

Proper language and terminology communicate concepts and principles. In medicine and science getting concepts and language wrong may be a matter of life and death as we are seeing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Getting the same wrong in constitutional matters may help to weaken the vitality of our parliamentary system within the body politic.

Since independence the Prime Minister of The Bahamas has been frequently and incorrectly referred to in the media, by some commentators and even by various politicians as the nation’s chief executive. The constitution confers no such title on a prime minister.

Some often glibly and inaccurately refer to the prime minister as “the nation’s chief”. Much of this is due to our relatively recent and limited history of cabinet government and as an independent country.

With the cult of personality and strongman politics of Sir Lynden Pindling we inflated in our political consciousness the actual powers of a prime minister, whose power, in significant ways, is considerably less than those of a US president. Sir Lynden was often called “Chief”.

Our proximity to the US and ignorance about our constitution has resulted in a misunderstanding of our parliamentary system and cabinet government and in the repeated regurgitation of factual errors.

We borrow promiscuously from the American political lexicon expressions which are quite misleading when we try to understand and discuss our own constitution which is vastly different from that of the US.

Enamoured with the drama of the American presidential system, quite a number of Bahamians are more aware of American civics than we are of our own.

Often mesmerized by the US media’s reporting on the American government and the trappings of the US presidency, we sometimes erroneously compare that system with parliamentary democracy absent a deeper appreciation of the origins, history, strengths and potential weaknesses of either system.

AUTHORITY

In our system, the Prime Minister is the most important member of cabinet and that is why we call him or her prime (or first), and he or she has important constitutional powers including certain powers of appointment.

Still, executive authority under our constitution is vested in the British monarch (Article 71) and is exercised by her representative the Governor General. That is why no legislation by parliament becomes law until it is signed by the Governor General.

Further, the constitution gives responsibility for the general direction and control of the government to the cabinet (Article 72), not the prime minister. That is what collective responsibility means.

In the U.S. cabinet secretaries are only advisers to the president, who alone will make a final decision on a given matter. In The Bahamas, the cabinet reaches a consensus on matters of policy and the programmes of the government.

In our system the prime minister is not, as President George W Bush put it, “the decider”. The cabinet collectively are “the deciders”.

Article 72 of our constitution provides that the cabinet “shall have the general direction and control of the government of The Bahamas and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament”.

This is very different from systems with an executive president, such as the United States. All important decisions of The Bahamas Government must be made collectively by the cabinet.

The American president individually enjoys extensive executive authority, authority that has grown dramatically since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The repeated assertion that The Bahamas prime minister inherently has too much power is a red herring.

The US president may engage in certain military actions without the need to get approval from his or her cabinet or from the Congress, though the president would be wise to consult both. There continues a historic debate about presidential war powers.

RESPONSIBILITY

In our system the prime minister must get approval for military action from the cabinet and for extended military action from parliament. The prime minister’s chief responsibility is the coordination and discipline of the cabinet where he or she is primus inter pares (first among equals).

A prime minister is expected to provide leadership for his or her colleagues; is responsible for the agenda and conduct of the proceedings of the cabinet as well as discipline; is responsible for the overall coordination of the government; and is the chief spokesperson for the government.

The Constitution also gives him or her the authority to make or advise certain appointments, including the appointment of ministers.

A minister, including the prime minister, may bring a paper to cabinet proposing a certain course of action or policy or project or legislation. A minister may also in certain circumstances raise a matter orally at the table.

Cabinet debates the issue and comes to a conclusion or conclusions which are then binding on the relevant minister and all of his or her colleagues as well as other relevant agencies of the government.

Once a cabinet conclusion is arrived at, neither the prime minister nor any other individual minister can legally overturn, reverse or vary such decision. However, the cabinet can collectively revisit any previous conclusion.

We elect a party to office. There is no direct election of a prime minister. Again, he or she is not an elected chief executive. He or she is a part of cabinet, in which general direction and control of the country is vested and which is collectively responsible.

A commentary published by the FNM described cabinet government: “The heart of cabinet government is the ability of ministers to reach a consensus on critical matters and collaborate on and direct government policy.”

The commentary further noted: “Ministers who cannot in principle accept a particular policy are honour-bound to resign. Ministers should not publicly promote independent agendas at the expense of colleagues. Ministers should advise their colleagues in advance about actions which may affect their ministries.”