The motive of an early election

While the discussion on constitutional reform has centred on the transformation of the Parliament’s structure, it is obvious that electoral changes must also be a key part of any modified constitution. And the setting of the election date would be a good starting point, if such a process ever gets underway.

Chapter 4, Part III, Section 68 of our Constitution mandates that Parliament shall continue for five years from the date of its first sitting (unless the country is at war, in which case the 5-year period can be extended by 12 months). The first clause in this section states that "The President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, may at any time prorogue or dissolve Parliament." A General Election must be held within three months of such dissolution. So, while there is an upper limit of five years, the Prime Minister essentially has to give just three months’ notice before a General Election.

Our politicians undoubtedly prefer this system to one in which the election date is fixed. And it is true that an inflexible date creates its own set of problems, since all kinds of external factors could necessitate an early election. But, just as the present Constitution makes provision for a late election, a revamped Constitution could easily anticipate mitigating circumstances. So this is not the reason why our political leaders have never even entertained the idea of a fixed election date.

The fact is, having the leeway to call a General Election at any time gives significant political advantage to the party in power. If, for example, the Government’s performance is not up to mark —and voters generally start to get disillusioned about halfway through a government’s term of office — then the Prime Minister may decide to call an election early before the grumbling causes citizens to change their ballot or stay away from the polls. A key calculation in such a strategy would be the real or perceived weakness of the Opposition.

So, given all this, why has Mr Manning been hinting at an early election? It may be that he has paid attention to the NACTA polls which show that the United National Congress will not be returned to office with Basdeo Panday at the helm. If this is Mr Manning’s calculation, then he would have to hold elections before October, when the UNC elects its executive. But Mr Manning may also be paying attention to the increasing disenchantment among citizens with both political parties. Since the floating voters may hold the key to victory in the marginal constituencies, it may be that Mr Manning does not want to give sufficient time for a new political party to emerge. A third possibility is that he wants to have a General Election before the number of constituencies is increased from 36 to 41, since neither party can be entirely sure what this would mean for traditional voting patterns.

But the core question is this — should any Prime Minister be allowed to make such calculations when calling a General Election?

It seems that a fixed election date requiring a year’s advance notice, by limiting the partisan political calculations of the party in office, serves democracy better than the present arrangement.