Need to clarify duties of President

THE EDITOR: When one examines constitutional reform, it is usually with the intent to correct certain shortcomings which have been either under observation, or which have repeated themselves and become virtual sore points, which citizens and government can no longer put up with. Let us not forget though, that in a democracy, where the voice of the majority is supposed to rule, and in a republic where the voice of the people is sovereign, in both cases acceding to the dictates of citizens, government and all prospective candidates for government, will have their own separate agendas. The less stricture and checks upon government and the greater their unfettered power, the more preferable this is for them. It is imperative that the people ensure that their desires, concerning government, are set down and fulfilled.

Some of the sore points can be listed as:
(1) Failure of the Judiciary to clarify intent of the Constitution re (a) the Occah Seapaul fiasco (b) Power, place and relationship between Judiciary and Government (c) Determining and settling the correct relationship and behaviour, between the government and the Presidency. All citizens must understand that the pillar of the Judiciary in a country is not limited to prosecutorial duties only. The Judiciary, being one pillar among three ie (1) the Legislative (2) the Judiciary, and (3) the Executive, must possess such integrity, as to be able to properly settle all questions of law in a country, bringing clear and precise decisions based on law and recognised tradition (precedents) free from error or ambiguity. A country must be able to rely on its Judicial pillar for this. If this is not available, there exists a tremendous shortcoming. Whether this is a Constitutional problem or not, this cannot be ignored, in this context.

(2) The place and duties of the President seem to be imprecise, as the intent of the Constitution on this is not elaborate, and whether by mistake or design, is couched in too few words. Too much seems to be left to the dictates of conscience rather than definite law, almost leaving the determination, up to the immediate need of the nation. Citizens still cannot seem to determine the place and use of the Presidency; even though this office has demonstrated its usefulness, by deciding what should be done, in the intractable situation of an electoral tie, and settling this, if not amicably, at least decisively, and with remarkable foresight. Citizens must — even now — try to appreciate the correct gravity and importance that a firm decision here had made on the release of tension in our peace-loving island. What would have been our dilemma and course, were it not for the Presidency? In this alone, the Presidency has justified its existence. I believe that it is a grave pity that Presidents have occupied and left the Office, but none, especially the last President, has seen fit to apprise us of the usefulness and nature of the Presidency, especially since this Office has taken some severe and most irreverent flak, from the last regime.

(3) More and more governments have found themselves hamstrung and severely inconvenienced and frustrated by the fact that they are given the responsibility to assure efficient service and production, from government funded “Ministries,” yet their authority is compromised. Select persons in charge of operations have also complained of being “toothless” in the administering of discipline, in order to ensure efficient service. What we have existing in our country is a virtual three-ring circus where government, who are the managers of the people’s monies and are the sole and only protectors of the people’s interests (there is none other) can spend the people’s money, but cannot assure value and efficiency for this, neither can the ultimate managers that they hire. Accountability and responsibility are quite literally removed from these because of the existence of a third and intervening party which purports to protect the rights of the worker. Unions, laws, lawyers, courts, tribunals, arbitrators and ombudsmen etc somehow all appear to be insufficient or inefficient in ensuring the cause and rights of the worker. The existence of Service Commissions are as important as having a third leg on a human being. This alone has been responsible for the culture of sustained occupation rather than performance and the illogical and diseased dependence and preoccupation that our country has with qualification rather than simple capability (which very effectively condemns about half of our population to being non-entities), and our incomprehensible tolerance and acceptance of mediocrity as a persistent culture in our lives. Responsibility without authority is a prescription for frustration and inefficiency.

(4) The public demand that those who spend our money are fully accountable and are totally free from excuses. The public also wish the power to dismiss with alacrity those who fail to perform or deliver, and no longer wish to tolerate occupation without performance, at their expense, both in funds and in results. This philosophy also applies to its government. Mechanisms must be put in place to allow this facility to the nation, and must no longer be tolerated for extended “terms.”

(5) Opposition politics seems to have run its course and outlived its usefulness. At the moment, there is none so irrelevant to the country and national life as the tremendously skewed antics of the present Opposition. They are not worthy of newsprint, air-time or publicity. Their contribution is less than nought in that their every purpose is to destabilise and depose a legitimate government and interrupt the legitimate functions of government and country. There seems no purpose for a first runner-up in the electoral race, if representatives truly represent the voice of their people, and senators represent the informed and the conscience of the nation. Both parties should be able to call government to account in Parliament and can adjust to suit, any of government’s intentions. The agenda and intentions of government should be known to Parliament, press and people, and should not be, or occur, in secret.

(6) The fiasco that occurs in government’s behaviour and projects, as occurred in so many projects in the past, chief example now being the airport project, should never again occur. It is offensive and vexatious to the population to be the victim of thieves in government who manipulate processes from legal and proper to improper and illegal, in order to enrich themselves and their friends. All such discoveries should be labelled and attract the gravest prosecution (ie defrauding a trust). To be such a victim of fraud costing many millions of dollars and then to have to spend more on discovering this and then prosecuting this constitute gratuitous waste that is unbearable for the nation to countenance and deserves the harshest penalties. This also highlights an unforgivable failure by that government. Some mention should be made in the Constitution for gross dereliction of proper duties in government, by any government official, who is aware yet sits stoically by. Such a one must be guilty of or by association and conspiracy.

(7) Borrowing and/or spending large sums of money, should be brought before Parliament for discussion, and/or approval.
Parliament as much as possible should not frustrate or hamper the intent of Cabinet or government, unless this proves necessary. A Congress of the Upper and Lower House, should be entertained as a desirable option, under certain circumstances.

(8) The only consideration in determining legislation should be the ultimate welfare of what is right for the nation, and if the wording or design is correct, or inclusive enough or precise enough, to allow maximum benefit. To use the creation of legislation as some sort of bargaining tool or to benefit the few rather than the many is reprehensible in every way. Mention should be made of all corruption in the production of legislation and frustration of the people’s business caused by manipulations. I am sure that more can be said. Our Constitution need not undergo too severe a change. I have written from the point of view of facilitation, rather than any other pattern. I am one who firmly opposes an executive President which can pave the way for an unconscionable despot if we take the performance of the last government into full account. I believe that the Office of the President as it is, remains necessary, but clarification is required. This clarification does not necessarily have to be made in the Constitution.

TERRENCE C BARRAN
La Romaine