Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
by Rahym Augustin-Joseph
The political turmoil within the ‘former’ Team Unity Government in St. Kitts and Nevis which gave rise to members of PAM & CCM writing to the Governor General to withdraw their support from Prime Minister Timothy Harris, and the filing of the motion of no confidence in his leadership, seems to be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.
These political developments will unceremoniously end the one-year tenure of this Team Unity Government in its current formula. Politics truly has no permanent friends, only permanent interests especially after having created some strange bedfellows.
Before that time has come, these developments make for an in-depth political analysis and commentary. They allow us as onlookers to look beyond the surface and interrogate the inherent flaws within Westminster and provides us with clear examples on how the system continues to be ill-equipped to deal with our changing political climate and culture.
Without pre-empting the outcome of the vote of the elections whenever that day comes, it is important to note that, notwithstanding the issues of leadership with Prime Minister Harris, part of the reason for the failings of the Unity Government is that coalition governments are primarily incompatible
with our practice of Westminster.
The modified version of Westminster system of governance practised within the Commonwealth Caribbean is premised on strong party loyalty, collective responsibility, and towing the party line even when it goes against one’s philosophical beliefs and what is deemed as proper for development of their constituency.
For us, the political party is always right and we must guard it and defend it in all material ways with our life and soul as there is nothing that comes before or after it.
he system portrays unity as unanimity of voices and can cause severe alienation and victimisation if one goes against
the party line.
It is with these conceptions in mind that Caribbean historian CLR James has always lamented against the undemocratic nature of our system and warned us that we should not take too seriously our claim to being a democratic society beyond free, fair and integrity-based elections, separation of powers and other basic features
of liberal democracies.
However, our reflective instinct towards crude authoritarianism on the part of the leadership were habits formed in the harsh school of plantation slavery and the current age demands the careful nurturing of new democratic instincts.
Therefore, when one is within an arrangement such as Team Unity, with varying political interests and philosophical underpinnings which come at odds and cause political turmoil, how can one exhibit strong party loyalty as required by Westminster? Do you not expect government to fall?
How can many different political parties within one umbrella find their common ground while not neglecting their own roots? As a matter of fact, within our own modern democracy, Team Unity splitting on these major differences causes us to think deeply about whether these conceptions of a political party that we hold so dear are not outmoded or our practice of Westminster is making our democracy too combative and undemocratic.
It is not unintelligible to see how these programmatic viewpoints on development and nation building will find itself at odds within the various sub-groupings of the political party which 17587262974do not have proper mechanism for consensus building. For coalitions, which exist within Westminster, they fail to recognise that their incompatibility renders the tools utilised for Westminster’s success as futile.
It is the view of every fraction within a coalition that they too must have their interests looked after and sometimes these even run counter to the national interest as there is preoccupation with serving the internal objectives of the fractions.
The free will to choose in some respects in coalition governments sometimes causes gridlock and retards development and governmental agenda. If these are undue, then it threatens the ability to get things done. Coalition governments in some instances however also lack soul and seem opportunistic at best.
Ultimately, their success depends on the willingness and commitment of participating parties to constructively work together. The lack of appreciation by the public across the world for coalitions therefore happens as a result of the continuous internal fighting inherent in the model which do not seem like constructive democratic consensus building and does not encourage confidence in voters.
Prime Minister’s Powers
While team Unity seems to be fractured because of the incompatibility, this does not mean that the issues raised about the leadership of the Prime Minister, by Premier Mark Brantley and Hon. Shawn Richards are without merit and should be dismissed.
As a matter of fact, some of these, if true, are the antithesis of good governance principles and should not occur within our democratic states.
However, these issues shed light on what is permissible within the context of the ‘superordinate constitutional authority of the Prime Minister which lends itself to autocratic decision making similar to that which obtained under colonial government with powerful colonial governors according to Political Scientist Prof.
Cynthia Barrow- Giles. Therefore, what is required during this political turmoil is interrogation of the inordinate powers of the Prime Minister. Our system therefore needs to be removed from personalities, always believing that individuals will utilise integrity as the cornerstone of their exercise of power.
We need to move away from the expressions and taglines of being blessed with visionary leaders with integrity as a mechanism to evade engaging in constitutional reform which will create transparent and democratic institutions.
The Labour Party and what remains of Unity should not use this opportunity to portray their political short-sightedness but as statesmen plan for the future and give their commitment to robust and comprehensive constitutional reform.
This reform must repudiate the inordinate powers of the Prime Minister to call a snap election especially on the heels of the filing of the motion of no-confidence as it is undemocratic and dampens the ability of the legislature to perform its supervisory function over the government’s performance.
The Prime Minister should not be allowed to evade a referendum on himself by exercising a prerogative power and dissolving parliament without a date attached to the announcement for the elections.
As a matter of fact, the time has come for a fixed date for elections with some deference given to the Prime Minister and the House to cater for emergencies. The motion of no-confidence, however, should still remain as an indispensable check and balance on the government.
Prime Minister Harris firing most of his cabinet ministers as a result of what has occurred, must also be subject to reform and there needs to be a review of configuration of the Executive arm of the Government.
Therefore, when Richards and Brantley lament the need for Electoral Reform, equitable distribution of financial resources not riddled with partisan influences, proper financial accounting and management, proper distribution of CIP funds and breaching of electoral party politics agreements as some of their pressing issues, it is fully comprehensible that the success or failure of these areas have been solely determined at the behest of the Prime Minister.
However, within our liberal democracies we have to interrogate whether the framers intended for one individual to yield so much unchecked power? These issues continue to confirm the view of late former Barbados Prime Minister Tom Adams which quite rightfully noted that the Prime Minister is “more than No. 1, he is it; so much so that what we have in this country is not cabinet government but Prime Ministerial Government. The Prime Minister can play the part of Samson and drag down the temple with him.”
While it is true that we cannot legislate integrity, it is important that the systems in place are strong enough to withstand tyranny and to cater for those among us who lack integrity. The system should be able to protect men from their innate brutish Hobbesian self and not enable it.
Rahym Augustin-Joseph is a second year student of the UWI Cave Hill Campus from Saint Lucia reading for a double major in Political Science and Law and member of the Cave Hill Guild of Students Council. While Rahym is a member of the Guild of Students Council 2021-2022, these views are not affiliated to this organisation and are his own. Rahym Augustin-Joseph can be reached via rahymrjoseph9@gmail.com.
