One of our more erudite and distinguished jurists, the late Sir Hugh Wooding — if, perchance, he happens to be “cooling his heels” among fellow members of the legal fraternity — could, I surmise, be experiencing some difficulty coping with the unusually high temperature of his current environment. Perhaps adding to the late legal luminary’s discomfort is the now incessant ringing in his ears, brought on by the way in which his name is being bandied about by political players and non-players, constitutional “experts” and ignoramuses (including political misleaders) in connection with the report of the “Wooding Constitution Review Commission” and specifically the recommendations about the question of proportional representation, of one form or another, in our electoral system. It’s common knowledge that the perceived problem with the “Williams constitution” is that too much power is concentrated in the office of the Prime Minister, without corresponding “checks and balances” and is therefore open to abuse, depending on the calibre and character of the current incumbent.
Now just as the Republican constitution can accommodate “a benign dictatorship,” it can also facilitate “a malevolent and arbitrary” one as well. Although I’m yet to be persuaded that PM Manning and Opposition leader Basdeo Panday can tell “B from Bull foot” where serious constitutional matters are concerned, “constitutional reform” appears to be the “new bone of contention” between those two political actors. Now it’s no secret that Manning and Panday have a political love/hate relationship, as evidenced by their “zero-sum” games. The moment one does or says something utterly stupid, the other jumps in to even the score. Please make a liar of me! However, their differences are, in my view, more apparent than real where their views on constitution reform are concerned. Believe it or not, Panday came up with the “bright idea” that the party that got the most votes should provide “the executive president” and the party with the most seats would provide the government and the Prime Minister. The “executive president” would formulate policy and would “negotiate” with the Prime Minister and the government to implement policy. Now, I don’t pretend to be quoting Panday verbatim because his thought processes — such as they are — are never quite that clear. However, that’s what I gathered.
Could anyone be happy with what is projected as a Panday/Manning or a Panning/Manday dispensation. On the other hand, Manning, anticipating pal Panday’s political demise, has openly opted for a “demotion” from “Father of the Nation,” ensconsed at the Red House to “executive president” in some humbler abode. I’m not being facetious here, not by a long shot. I know my lads, and the anticipated political gimmickry, cosmetics and attendant political “shadow dancing” should be viewed against the background of personal overweening political ambition. Please don’t underestimate those two political neophytes, parading themselves as worthy successors to the esteemed Eric Williams. Poor fellas, they probably got drunk on Williams’ left-over prescription. As the old folks would put it, “What de Doc left them to rub, they drank.” Looking at the bigger and better picture, there is the view that “proportional representation” in a pure or modified form could be the panacea for our political problems in respect of the perceived inability of the “first-past-the-post” system to produce a representative administration with the concomitant legitimacy and moral authority for governance.
However, there is also the contending view that “proportional representation” spawns a multiplicity of ethnic, cultural, religious and other “constituencies” which provide the breeding grounds for all sorts of combinations and permutations of inherently unstable coalitions which, in turn, lead to what has been called “revolving door government.” It seems to me that one of the Wooding Commission’s chief concerns was the actual, incipient or potential hegemonic nature of political parties — even pseudo-parties — that are ethnically-based. Mr Michael de la Bastide, a member of the Commission and former Chief Justice, averred that the Commission’s proposals were intended to result in the reduction of the power of the person holding the office of Prime Minister (whoever that person may be) and a truer reflection in Parliament of the support in the country for the ruling party (whichever party that might be).
Some have compared the office of Prime Minister as being that of king, emperor and executive president, all rolled into one. My own, perhaps erroneous, impression is that the office of Prime Minister has all the potential of being akin to an octopus with many and far-reaching tentacles presiding over a stingless jellyfish parliament — more so with an effete and moribund parliamentary Opposition. It should be interesting to see whether a genuine public debate on constitutional constraints and reform could take place above the mindless clack and clatter that is, apparently, the prerogative of those — not necessarily the unlettered and unlearned — with political axes to grind, hidden agendas to pursue, political ambitions to realise and who are not averse to indulging the luxury of cordless constitutional “bungee jumping.”
