Not so long ago, the PPP envisaged mayhem if the PNC was out of the National Assembly, but it now feels sufficiently confident to chase them out of that chamber. If the Leader of the Opposition did not previously appreciate the importance of permanent, effective and strategic political mobilization as a means of gaining political compliance in countries such as ours, he must have reached that realization now and faces the ignominy of being deliberately ejected from the very chamber upon which he has placed all his faith!
As I have argued before, this kind of nearly pure parliamentarianism is only effective where institutional arrangements are sufficiently entrenched to make recalcitrant acts extremely costly. Lesson learnt, and as difficult as it will be at this juncture, the entire opposition had better start to busy themselves if they are not to face even greater humiliation.
True to form, with prorogation the PPP is following a corrupt tradition that is only usually broken when the people stand ready to punish the defaulter. Prorogation originated in England as an instrument of political subterfuge, and mid-session prorogation, such as the one we now have, has for the most part continued this tradition! Governments do it because, notwithstanding the deluge of opposition criticism and even public protest, they reckon that they can get away with it.
Since early English parliaments were not permanent affairs but only summoned to deal with specific matters and dissolved thereafter, prorogations were unnecessary. Not unlike the PPP, Henry VIII also wanted a compliant parliament. However, as parliaments were convened anew each year, he could not be assured of this outcome. So, having found a cooperative parliament, he decided to keep it permanently in session by means of the royal prerogative of prorogation.
When the opposition are considering how we got into this sorry mess and how we can extricate ourselves from and prevent it happening again, they had better realize that although much of the fault may reside in the PPP regime, the rules by which we are governed are also at fault. Once again, our constitution has let us down.
I have argued many a time that this constitution – an admixture of the presidential and Westminster type parliamentary system, – provides us with the worst of both worlds (`A Potential toxic brew of presidential and parliamentary systems’ SN: 01/06/2011).
À propos the current controversy, the constitution gives the president powers that are normally divided in the Westminster system. In the latter, the power to dissolve or prorogue parliament usually resides in the head of state, to whom the head of government, usually a prime minister, must appeal and must usually persuade that the prorogation is necessary.
It is not unusual for heads of state to at least add important conditionalities to the act of prorogation. For example, the first Prime Minister of Canada, John A. Macdonald, in attempting to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of a Pacific Railways scandal, called upon the governor general to prorogue parliament. The latter insisted that the stoppage be only for ten weeks and that in the meantime a Royal Commission inquire into and report on the scandal upon the return of parliament. When parliament was reconvened and the commission reported, Macdonald had to resign. This tradition of governor generals questioning the use of royal prerogatives and prorogations has continued to the present day.
But this is not to argue that all Westminster-type jurisdictions are so prone to prorogations. Australia appears to have escaped its use for political purposes, but given the debate about whether our parliament can be continuously prorogued, it might be useful to consider the following, which occurred there.
“Parliament is prorogued by the Governor-General who may do so by proclamation or otherwise. On 10 October 1902 the Acting Governor-General, in a speech to Members of both Houses in the Senate Chamber, prorogued the 1st Parliament until 14 November 1902 and it was then prorogued a further five times by proclamation before it met for the 2nd Session on 26 May 1903. The 2nd Session, in turn, was prorogued by the Governor-General in person on 22 October 1903. The 2nd Parliament was prorogued in the same manner three times and on each occasion there were further prorogations by proclamation” (Parliament of Australia, Chapter 7, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/).
“Canadian experience is a chronology of prime ministers … using the tools of the executive branch to try to exploit ambiguity in constitutional conventions in order to hold onto power in the face of not having or likely being able to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons.” (Bruce M. Hicks -2010- “British and Canadian Experience with the Royal Prerogative,” Canadian Parliamentary Review).
But the worst offender in Canada has been Prime Minister Stephen Harper who appears to have used prorogation as a standard parliamentary tool, forcing one political science professor, to observe that “no Prime Minister has so abused the power to prorogue” (“The Wrong Kind of Transparent: Stephen Harper and Prorogation:” Political Bouillon, 25/08/13).
In 2008, facing a vote of no confidence to his conservative minority government, Harper prorogued the parliament. In 2009 he again prorogued to prevent a house committee from continuing its investigation into the treatment of Afghan detainees. On one occasion, there were some 40 street protests across Canada – some 3,500 people gathered in Ottawa – to object to the acts of prorogation (News Vancouver, “ Protesters rally against Parliament’s pause,” 24/01/2010).
In 2013, rather than face parliamentary questions concerning several scandals rocking his regime, Harper again prorogued parliament. Thus the Political Bouillon commented “Given how the 2008 and 2009 prorogations are viewed in the political community 2013 will be seen as yet another year in which the Harper administration has proven both unable and unwilling to face the channels of an open and accountable democratic society” (op.cit.).
Stephen Harper once claimed that he would prorogue the Canadian parliament because the “time has come for a new parliamentary agenda because most of the promises the Conservatives made in the last election have been fulfilled” (CTV News, “Harper says he will prorogue parliament,” 19/08/2013). If that appeared somewhat disingenuous, the PPP’s contention that it is locking the doors of the National Assembly to encourage discussion or to call local government elections after months of its refusing to do so, is bizarre!
Indeed, it goes further than this. As this kind of idiotic explanation can only be directed at entrenched supporters, it is disrespectful of their very humanity, suggesting that the PPP believes that the condition into which these supporters have been brainwashed has left them with no alternative but to vote for it!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
