The headline in the Guardian last Wednesday screamed "Infighting in Partnership" and was a direct reference to rumblings within the People's Partnership Government in the aftermath of the announcement of membership of a number of State Boards. This was inevitable owing to the fact that the People's Partnership Government is based on a consociational foundation of multiple political parties and entities that contested the general elections of May 24 this year under three party symbols. Our constitutional arrangements are founded on a majoritarian principle that requires a majority of MPs in the elected House of Representatives to be the basis upon which the Executive branch of government (the Cabinet et al) is constructed. The Partnership Agreement that was signed clearly recognises Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar as the unanimous choice for the office of Prime Minister.
What the Partnership Agreement signed at Charlie King Junction on April 21 this year cannot regulate is the political patronage that will be dispensed by the People's Partnership Government and the manner in which it will be done. In our political system the Prime Minister is the all-dominant and all-powerful entity whose final word is the key to the execution of public policy and political patronage. The intent of the People's Partnership is to change the political culture that has driven those constitutional principles for the last forty-eight years. In the course of executing that challenge, the current scenario with regard to State Boards is the public expression of the internal tension.
An altered constitution
Without altered constitutional arrangements, the existing Westminster-Whitehall model will permit the final word to rest with the Prime Minister and no one else. What has been publicly announced is what the Prime Minister has sanctioned as it is a Government led by her for which she is ultimately responsible to the Parliament and the country. Sure the partners in the Government will have a say in the formulation of public policy, but at the end of the day the Constitution is based on a philosophy of maximum leadership and ultimate final responsibility for the Prime Minister. The electoral success enjoyed by the People's Partnership was based on their successful adaptation of a Western European philosophy of coalition partners that is usually applied in proportional representation systems where no party is likely to get a majority without having a coalition partner or partners before going into an election.
What happened in Trinidad and Tobago is that the formula worked so well that we ended up with an oversized government and not a coalition. This happened because one of the parties in the pre-election arrangement was able to win an outright majority of seats by candidates under its own symbol (the UNC with 21 of 41 seats). In the circumstances, the other parties in the Partnership Agreement, the COP (six seats) and the TOP (two seats) were added to the Government because of the promise made to the electorate, rather than the minimal-winning requirement for the formation of the Government under provisions of the Constitution which is 21 of 41 seats. As a consequence of this, the UNC has earned the right to dominate the Government even if that is not what was promised. The challenge is for them to mute that dominance in favour of establishing a proportional formula (or some other acceptable formula) for the dispensing of patronage. There are two ways the Partnership can do this.
Adopt traditional formula
They can adopt the traditional formula of placing party and financial supporters in positions on State Boards or they can adopt the formula publicly expressed by Hulsie Bhaggan, Vice Chairman of the COP, to seek national talent across all political persuasions.
This presents a challenge for the COP in the partnership as they may have to grin and bear some of what is happening to them as they have very little representation on the announced State Boards as documented by Joseph Toney (a contestant for the post of Chairman of the COP) last Thursday on the CNC 3 Early Show. The COP cannot break away from the Government and run towards the PNM as their own credibility would be at stake. If they sought to break away and stay on their own, they would be accused of trying to bring down the Government and their credibility would be challenged. Therefore, they have little choice but to stay in the Partnership and fight their battles from the inside.
This is where constitutional reform becomes their only ally. Many have rejected the idea of separating the Executive from the Legislature on the ground that an executive presidency was undesirable. This was largely associated with the perception of such a system being advocated by the former Prime Minister, Patrick Manning. The current constitutional arrangements are based on the domination of the Parliament by the Cabinet. How would a People's Partnership Government of the future handle a separation of powers between the Executive and the Parliament where one party holds the Presidency with partners appointed to the Cabinet and another party or parties controls the Parliament with a Majority Leader in charge in each House? Of course, such an allocation would have to be blessed by the electorate.