The Tribune

WE trace our governmental system to the United Kingdom, which honed the traditions and conventions of parliamentary democracy over centuries. Unlike the United Kingdom, The Bahamas has a codified Constitution.

Though the UK has various constitutional conventions and traditions, it does not have a written constitution like The Bahamas. It does not require a referendum to make fundamental constitutional changes. Though improbable, the British Parliament could act to abolish the monarchy.

Though it was politically expedient to do so, the Brexit referendum had no legal force. It was Parliament that had the constitutional and legal force and right to remove Britain from the European Union.

While The Bahamas adheres to core elements of the Westminster system, there are conventions we do not follow because of the size of our parliament. By example, we do not have the more extensive standing committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Because of the larger size of the Commons, 650 members, compared to 39 in our Assembly, there is a considerably larger backbench, which helps to keep the executive more accountable. For political purposes, both the PLP and the FNM, have had oversized cabinets, even when they enjoyed large majorities.

GENIUS

The historic genius or insight of parliamentary democracy is the recognition of inherent features of human and group psychology including temptations to abuse power; the need to restrain the power of the head of government through various checks; and the importance of collegiality and consensus-building in a cabinet system of collective responsibility.

In a parliamentary democracy, the executive branch, the Cabinet, is based in and responsible to Parliament. The prime minister and all of the ministers must sit in Parliament, the overwhelming majority in the elected chamber, the House of Assembly.

After the Second World War, the US did not impose its system on Japan after its surrender. Instead, it proposed a system of parliamentary democracy because the Japanese context was different from the context of the American colonial experience.

In the United States, the president is elected by the states and sits independently of the Congress. The president also appoints the Cabinet, and while the appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, none of them are members of the Congress, none of them are elected.

A quirk of the US system, which has evolved through historic practice, is the role of the Vice President, who is a member of the executive branch but who is also the President of the Senate and who “has the sole power to break a tie in the Senate”.

As noted on the US Senate website: “Prior to the 20th century, vice presidents rarely attended cabinet meetings or otherwise involved themselves in executive branch business.” The role of the Vice President grew significantly in the latter half of the 20th century.

NO CONFIDENCE

In The Bahamas, a Prime Minister and his cabinet can be brought down by the House at any time by a vote of no confidence. Following such a vote, a Prime Minister must step down or call an election.

The Bahamas Constitution presumes the existence of and government by political parties. Article 73 provides that the Prime Minister must be a member of the House “who is leader of the party which commands the support of the majority of the members of the House.”

There is no mention of political parties in the American Constitution. Some of the authors of that 18th century constitution, including George Washington, were not keen on the idea of political parties. But the idea inevitably took root nevertheless.

In The Bahamas, we elect a party to office. There is no direct election of a prime minister. The prime minister is not an elected chief executive. He or she is a part of cabinet, in which general direction and control of the government is vested and which is collectively responsible.

In the US cabinet secretaries are advisers to the president, who alone makes a final decision on a given matter, such as the bombing of a foreign country to other matters of domestic and foreign policy.

As noted in previous columns: in our system the prime minister is not, as President George W. Bush put it, “the decider”. The cabinet collectively are “the deciders”.

A head of government in cabinet government does not solely possess the authority to make certain important decisions. In such a system, the cabinet reaches a consensus on matters of policy and the programmes of the government.

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

EXECUTIVE

Still, executive authority under our Constitution is vested in the Queen (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.

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.”

Unlike in parliamentary democracies where heads of government may be deposed through votes of no confidence, or persuaded by colleagues to step down, the US must endure a cumbersome impeachment process or by employing, such as in the case of disability, the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, which has never been utilized in the more than two centuries of the American Republic.

The process for utilising the Amendment is complex, and parts of the Amendment are open to interpretation.

A vote of no confidence provides for a speedier resolution of a given matter and does not interminably tie the country up in knots such as in the US impeachment processes.

In our system, the party in power or the House of Assembly may act swiftly to remove a leader who is deemed either unfit for office or who no longer commands the support of the majority of his party. Our system is quicker and more flexible.

COHESIVE

For our parliamentary democracy to work, there must be cohesive, disciplined political parties in Parliament, parties whose members are bound together generally by a set of objectives and principles; generally because there is not likely any political party in the world in which each and every member agrees with everything the party advocates or does.

In the United States party discipline is not nearly as important as it is in our parliamentary system. Some members of Congress make a career and are celebrated for being mavericks.

In our system, by contrast, elected members of a party who do not understand this difference, or conveniently forget it, do so at their political peril.

In our Parliament there are two teams, the Government and the Opposition. Currently, in our House of Assembly there is not a single member who was elected as an independent.

Members of each side are elected as members of their particular team and are expected to support their team against the other side, especially in important matters like the budget.

Loyalty to a party or institution is not the same as being a toady or a bootlicker. Indeed, it often takes great courage to be loyal as demonstrated by MPs who support their party during difficult votes.

In every field of endeavour, loyalty is critical to the success of a group, especially at the high level of government and politics.

There are reforms that are needed to our system of government. The 2013 Constitutional Commission recommended:

“The power of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament outside of the regular five-year term, except in the circumstances prescribed by the Constitution (i.e., a vote of no-confidence), should, in the Commission’s view, be eliminated.”

The Commission also recommended continuity: “Despite hearing several proposals to modify the electoral system to allow for some form of proportional representation in the House of Assembly, the Commission does not endorse such a change.

“While it accepts that the ‘winner take all’ approach of the first-past-the- post system has sometimes polarised and undermined government legitimacy in the region, the Commission still considers it the superior electoral system and therefore recommends its retention.”

Even as we reform our Constitution and system of government we should retain those elements which make it resilient, viable and superior in significant ways.