LIMIT PRIME MINISTER TO TWO FULL TERMS

The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago should be amended to limit to two full terms the period an individual may hold the Office of Prime Minister, instead of the unlimited number of terms as obtains today. In addition, the Constitution should be further amended to provide for the appointment of a Deputy Prime Minister, who must be an elected Member of the House of Representatives. The Constitution should allow also for the automatic appointment by the President of the Deputy Prime Minister to perform the duties of Prime Minister in the absence of the PM from the country, or as stated in Section 78 (1) of the 1976 Republican Constitution, if he “is unable by reason of illness or of the provisions of Section 77 (4) to perform the functions conferred on him” by the Constitution.

For the record Section 77 (4) states: “Where at any time the Prime Minister is required under the provisions of Section 49 (3) to cease to perform his functions as a Member of the House of Representatives, he shall cease during that time to perform any of his functions of Prime Minister.” Admittedly, English speaking Caribbean countries which have followed the Westminister model have tended to adopt the two-party system, and alternate between one party and the other. Of interest, is that the relevant parties in the respective countries have usually been in power for a maximum of two terms, save, for example, Trinidad and Tobago where, applying this position in a strictly post-Independence context, the People’s National Movement was in power for five consecutive terms - 1962-1986.

The change in the Constitution which I am advocating, does not touch on the number or years and/or terms that a party can be in power, but rather the limiting of an individual to two full terms in Office as Prime Minister. The unexpired portion of the term of a person, who was appointed to the Office of Prime Minister, but who has died or resigned, clearly would not be counted as a full term. For most of the 24-year stay in Office of the People’s National Movement, indeed just short of four terms, Dr Eric Williams, late Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago remained as Prime Minister until his death in 1986.  Dr Williams’ length of time in Office was understandable. He had led the country out of colonialism — he was Chief Minister and Premier between 1956 and 1962 — and into Independence and remained at the political mountain top, the architect of freedom and social change.

But a change to limiting a Prime Minister today to two terms in Office, whether in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana, Antigua, Grenada or any other English speaking member of the Caribbean Community of Nations, is necessary if only to avoid the encouraging of too much power in the hands of one man or woman. Then, what becomes important is not the concerns of the country, but the “whims and fancies” of an individual. Even the party’s (whether PNM, UNC or NAR) carefully thought out policy positions, which had attracted the attention of voters and brought it to power would be in danger of being subverted, new ideas ignored, if not stifled, and potential Prime Ministers placed under suspicion and “heavy manners.”
But side by side with any change in the Republican Constitution, there must be changes effected to Party Constitutions, which today require, however worded, that Political Leaders of parties, successful at the polls in a General Election be appointed Prime Minister by the President.

The parties should see the wisdom of inserting in their Constitutions a clause that no one should be eligible for re-election to the post of Political Leader, who has served two full terms as Prime Minister.  An area of the Constitution which would have to be changed to give effect to any change which would allow for the appointment of a Deputy Prime Minister to act to perform the duties of Prime Minister under specific circumstances, is Section 78 [1]. A suggested wording is: “Where the Prime Minister is absent from Trinidad and Tobago or is unable by reason of illness or of the provisions of Section 77 [4] to perform the functions conferred on him by this Constitution, the President shall authorise the Deputy Prime Minister to perform those functions.... and that member may perform those functions until his authority is revoked by the President.”

Over the years, beginning with the appointment of the late Senator Francis [Boysie] Prevatt, several non- elected persons, on the advice of various Prime Ministers, have been appointed to perform the duties of the Office of Prime Minister. The framers of the Constitution, in their collective wisdom, stated clearly in Section 76 that “Where there is reason for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister - (a) a Member of the House of Representatives who is the Leader in that House of the party which commands the support of the majority of Members of that House...” Why should the framers of the Constitution have insisted that a Prime Minister should come from among the Members of the House of Representatives, all of whom are elected, had it been their intention to allow a non-elected Member of Parliament, a Senator, to perform the functions of Prime Minister in his absence, for whatever the reason? Of course there are those who will point to the phrase “some other Member of Cabinet to perform those functions” in an effort to support their non-argument.
 
That matter, along with the issues of limiting a Prime Minister to two full terms and the appointment of a Deputy Prime Minister (itself directly connected to the question of who should perform the duties of Prime Minister during his absence from Office) should be addressed in the context of amendments to the Constitution, and with despatch.