Recent regional political developments have once again proved the truth of the statement that a week is a long time in politics.
Here at home, we have witnessed former prime minister Owen Arthur reconstituting himself as an Independent member of the House of Assembly; but given the limitations of the Chamber he has had to take a seat on the front bench on the same side of the House as the governing party, but separated from them.
In Trinidad and Tobago, two of the proposed constitutional changes would limit the number of terms a Prime Minister can hold office to two; and provide the power to recall of an MP. These are by sheer coincidence directly relevant to the Barbados controversy.
The other proposals include the introduction of a run-off where no candidate has secured an absolute majority of the votes and with fixed dates for elections.
These changes may have helped the diminishing chances of Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar returning to office, but they are important proposals and deal with key aspects of the system of governance in these parts.
Not surprisingly, there has already been wide interest and debate and there has been a certain focus on the limitation of terms of office of prime ministers, with at least one regional leader reported to have disagreed with the proposal. He thinks that the people should have the last word on the election of their leader.
There is merit in both these arguments, and the topicality of this debate has been enhanced by the startling resignation from the BLP of Mr Arthur, who led the party in government for 14 years, amid allegations that he was interested in returning to the leadership. He made it clear that he disliked being made the source of contention within the party.
There has been an ongoing debate on the power of our prime ministers; and limitation of terms and fixed election dates would both be aimed directly at curbing such power. Yet we urge caution in proceeding with partial changes in the structure of our constitutions.
Like the ubiquitous chattel house so well known in the region, the parts hang together in a coherent whole and sometimes a change in some of the “floor board” principles may have unintended effect on other parts of the structure.
We have no doubt that the proposals in Trinidad and Tobago are meant to enhance the political governance and would return some key power to the hands of the voters, given that in small democracies; prime ministers armed with the wide range of Westminster-type powers are kings in elective dictatorships. What is more, the absence of a truly powerful new media in some of our smaller islands compounds the problem and the people are virtually powerless except for five minutes every five years.
This situation must change. The most significant brake on runaway power may come from changes such as those proposed, once they are reinforced by public education on how these small states are governed and how their governance may be improved.
In this way, the drive for change can come from the people themselves rather than from the politicians. History has shown that properly informed, the people are the best judges of how their democracies can be enhanced. That is why we have to put the demos back into democracy.
