The Tribune

This column first appeared in 2014. It is reprinted with updates and revisions.

WITHOUT appropriate language we cannot conceive, understand and communicate ideas and values. It is important that we get our language right. 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. Getting the same wrong in constitutional matters weakens the vitality of our parliamentary system within the body politic.

Since independence, the Prime Minister of The Bahamas has frequently and erroneously been 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.

ZNS repeatedly and inaccurately refers to the prime minister as “the nation’s chief”, a hangover from a previous era.

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 the “Nation’s Chief” or “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.

MESMERISED

Often mesmeriSed 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.

Some even do not understand the term republic. One radio talk show host, who is consistently factually wrong and a showman of little substance, sometimes suggests that he would prefer a republic rather than a parliamentary democracy.

It is curious the number of people who lay claim to constitutional scholarship, but who are persistently ignorant of basic matters within our constitution.

India, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Dominica, and many other parliamentary democracies are also republics. We could become a republic and remain a parliamentary democracy. Further, the countries mentioned remain members of the Commonwealth, but not with the British monarch as head of state.

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 his representative the Governor General. That is why no legislation by parliament becomes law until it is signed by the Governor General.

A related aside: a prime minister’s wife is not the first lady, another hangover and misnomer from a previous era. There is no equivalent in our system. In Britain, you never hear of the prime minister's wife referred to as the first lady.

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.

“DECIDERS”

In our system, the Prime Minister is not, as former President George W Bush liked to put it, "the decider”. The cabinet collectively are “the deciders”.

When former Prime Minister Perry Christie, who should know better, once mused about the creation of a standard or coat of arms for the Prime Minister, he was seeking to compete with the monarch’s representative.

He was evincing a curious ignorance and telegraphing a US-style presidential mindset that is foreign to our parliamentary system and the concept of collective cabinet government.

Mr Christie seemed to have forgotten that the prime minister is head of government and is collectively responsible to the head of state, to parliament, and to the people.

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 an historic debate about presidential war powers.

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Various prime ministers will be weaker or stronger in terms of leading or dominating a cabinet.

But a stronger cabinet can restrain a prime minister and he or she serves at the pleasure of a political party and parliament and can be removed as leader and prime minister at any time. The same cannot happen in the US system.

There are layers of checks on the powers of a prime minster. A failure to check prime ministerial power lies not in how our system is designed.

It lies in his or her cabinet, parliamentary and party colleagues, which the great Margaret Thatcher learned when she lost the support of her colleagues and subsequently resigned office.

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. Should we have term limits on the tenure of service of a cabinet or ministers? Of course, that would be patently absurd.

There are improvements which should and will in time be made to our system, such as how the Senate is constituted.

But there is an historic and inherent genius to our parliamentary democracy and cabinet government which we should seek to better understand and jealousy guard.

When we ignore or purposely upend certain norms and conventions, we do great harm to our democracy, harm that often takes time to repair, and sometimes harm that may be irreparable.