Dear Editor,
We now hear from Mr Ralph Ramkarran that the CCJ’s decision-making was “timid, indecisive and ineffectual” after he wholeheartedly referred to the very ruling in his August 4th column, “as these clear and telling words”. Mr Ramkarran, as Chairman of the 1999 Constitutional Reform Commission and one of the influential shapers of the constitution, has a special national responsibility in the aftermath of the passage of the no-confidence motion (NCM). First, he, more than most, must know that the NCM was not introduced into the constitution to be used as a personal and secret scheme by any one MP, whether or not under the influence or funding of private plotters. In fact, the so-called anti-defection provision and the party whip system clearly show the effort of the constitutional framers to thwart such hijacking of our supreme law, to maintain political stability, and to respect the will of the people as expressed in elections. With 20-20 vision, we now know that the safeguarding articles require more precision such as in the constitutions of other countries.
Given the legislative history and intention behind Article 106 and the other articles aimed at preserving stability and respecting the popular will, the campaign by Mr Ramkarran, Mr Ram and others for hasty elections is most troubling. There is no democratic mandate underpinning this campaign, no people’s power energizing or legitimizing it. Moreover, and very importantly, a rushed election that fails the smell test has the distinct potential of compounding the current problem.
In contrast, both of the country’s previous cases of early elections (shortened terms of office) were people driven. The 2001 election was the result of popular protest and the Herdmanston Accord. The 2015 election was precipitated by the fact that we had a minority government, with the parties with the combined majority support in the opposition.
But on December 21, 2018, a democratically-elected government, enjoying majority popular support, facing no social or economic crisis, was blind-sided by the treachery of one of its parliamentarians. His act was so without honour; he saw no need to share his stated concerns with his party leadership or with those who reside in his constituency or who generally support the government. Indeed, he spent the previous week publicly praising the very government he later stabbed with his NCM vote.
This treachery, illegitimized by legislative history and the tenets of representative democracy but made constitutional by imperfect drafting, is now being used to nullify the 2015 election result and to precipitate a constitutional crisis. As I pointed out in a previous letter, this matter goes far beyond legalities. And those who are innocently or deviously trying to take our gaze away from the bigger political picture are doing a disservice to our fledgling democracy.
The CCJ has therefore done the country a good favour by not reaching outside of its judicial boundaries and venturing into political matters. Its restraint allows us to confront the reality that we face a situation characterized by a tension caused by the democratic will of the electorate being thwarted by the dishonourable act of a MP, facilitated by loose constitutional text. We need a fair political solution, not blind legal imperatives.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe