Fresh from presiding over the resignation of her Minister of Sport at the end of last month as a furore built up around a financial scandal in his ministry, this being the twentieth dismissal or resignation of a minister since the UNC-COP coalition came into office in May of 2010, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has succeeded in swiftly changing the political discussion agenda in Trinidad & Tobago.
For clearly unexpectedly on the part of the main People’s National Movement opposition, she has been able virtually within the space of a fortnight, to be well on her way to fundamentally changing the Trinidad & Tobago Constitution
The new provisions of the constitution remain, at the time of writing, to go through the Senate. But it appears, even in the face of virulent criticism from the PNM opposition, and from defecting members of the Congress of the People (COP) section of the government’s coalition, that the Prime Minister has succeeded in ruthlessly taking the political wind from under their sails.
What has surprised the opposition, has been the fact that in presenting some extensive constitutional changes, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar did not do what might have been the conventional thing and allowed for a period of wide public discussion. Instead, she preferred to take the stance that the relevant public discussion should take place within the parliament where the people’s representatives are their duly reputed spokespersons, whether for or against the particular measures proposed.
In that regard, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar has, so far, assumed herself to be a potentially successful political gambler. For she dared all opponents of the constitutional revisions to present their cases before the national community, and face a post-parliamentary vote directly at the conclusion of a debate immediately scheduled. With her opponents from within the governing coalition and within the official PNM opposition, unable to reject a challenge within the highest forum of constitutional debate, she has given them, in effect, no time to marshal public opinion in a way that it could exert pressure on the parliament over a reasonable period of time.
The distress of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar’s opponents is evident in the description, by one of the journalistic critics, of her strategy and tactics as amounting to a “constitutional coup d’etat,” an oxymoron that describes the sense of surprise and defeat that the Prime Minister’s strategy has left in its wake.
The essence of Mrs Persad-Bissessar’s initiative in her Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 has been, firstly the introduction of term limits for prime ministers, secondly a provision for the recall of Members of Parliament deemed to have infringed their responsibilities, and thirdly a provision that would require, following an election, that a candidate would be deemed to be successful only if he or she has obtained fifty per cent of the vote in the constituency.
The first provision is obviously a reaction, long held by the opposition to the PNM of Eric Williams’ long hold on power as prime minister. And the second provision implies that even if a prime minister’s party continuously wins elections, the nominee of the elected members for the prime ministership would have to change once the outgoing prime minister had reached the term limits constitutionally mandated.
Undoubtedly, this provision would be anathema to the People’s National Movement for which Eric Williams’ long domination of the prime ministership amounts to a matter of pride. And it removes any sense that there is an equivalence (admittedly not constitutional) between the process of election to the leadership of a party, and the process of selection of a prime minister by parliamentarians elected to the parliament through the party’s efforts, and committed to the individual as party leader.
In regard to the second proposal in the Bill presented to Parliament, there would not be as much outrage as in the case of the first. For it follows the resignation of the Minister of Sport after revelations of major financial misappropriations in his ministry, deemed scandalous by many Trinidad & Tobago citizens irrespective of party affiliation. Yet traditional opponents of the legislation would claim that the recall, in effect the dismissal, of a parliamentarian should be the preserve of his party or party leaders, or be a matter for the courts as the final arbiter of claims of illegal behaviour.
The proposal concerning run-offs would probably be anathema to adherents of the British constitutional tradition. But it is sometimes claimed, and there appear be adherents to this view in Trinidad & Tobago, that in multi-ethnic communities, or in communities where religious affiliation more often than not implies or determines party affiliation, a normal majority does not indicate a sufficient constituency-wide legitimacy for the winner.
Whatever the specific concerns about Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar’s proposals approved by the House and awaiting consideration by the Senate, a sentiment appears to be rising in Trinidad, against what is considered undue haste, restricting sufficient wider (than parliamentary) public discussion.
In addition, it is being argued that other institutions, such as the Electoral and Boundaries Commission should have been asked to review the implications of the proposals prior to their reaching the Parliament.
Nonetheless, at this point, it is felt, by opponents of what has now transpired, that Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar has ‘pulled a fast one’ on her party’s opponents. What effect that sentiment will have in the upcoming Senate deliberations, is left to be seen.
