Vijay Maharaj
The British Constitution evolved over centuries of bloody contests for power between the King and the Lords, on the one hand, and the powerless masses struggling for liberty, on the other. There were issues of Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nationality, and there were also issues of Catholic and Jewish disability.
We in T&T have a different history. We need a Constitution with local inspiration, not the Westminster model. Our Constitution must reflect the necessity for power-sharing between all our ethnic groups, not domination by one group. Ethnic domination cannot work in this country. We must have national unity enshrined in the Constitution. Despite the claims of ‘inclusion’ of Africans, the UNC remains chiefly supported by Indians. Despite boasts by the PNM ‘seeing Indians in the crowd,’ the PNM remains essentially supported by Africans. Despite the non-racial talk on the political platform, the population essentially voted along the lines of the racial demographics of the nation. In the marginal seats where the tribes were balanced, the battle was won by which tribe could mobilise the most.
Any ‘agreement’ brokered by political parties will not be a panacea for the nation’s ethnic electoral gridlock. If even there was another general election with a clean voter list from the EBC, the ethnic call would still be compelling, and the result would be predictably just as close. The result will be that way, chiefly because of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy that defines our electoral process.
The new Constitution must include the following to break out of this racial and electoral gridlock: A fundamental change in the Constitution and electoral process is urgently required. These changes have to include a movement away from the first-past-the-post electoral system to:
• A system of proportional representation combined with a first-past-the-post representative.
• A two-term limit on the Prime Minister and government ministers, constituencies, with an even number of electors in each, including the constituencies in Tobago.
• An elected, expanded, and effective Senate combined with nominated senators.
• Presidential appointment of the Speaker or an elected Speaker by the population.
• No casting vote by the Speaker.
• An independent Attorney General’s office.
• An EBC with commissioners from the major political parties and independent people.
• Campaign financing policies. Some state funding for political parties must be made available.
• Re-organisation and expansion of the boundaries so that they are not biased ethnically. Constituencies must be geographically and naturally formed.
• Expanded Lower and Upper houses of Parliament.
• Parliamentary Oversight Committee to approve the appointment of ministers and state boards.
• All capital expenditures are to be approved by Parliament.
• THA Chief Secretary to be a non-voting sitting member of the House.
• A clearer separation between the legislative and executive
• The Chief Justice is to be appointed by a constitutional majority. Funds are to be allocated independently of the government.
• An independent judiciary with increased powers and finances for the Chief Justice to administer the operations of the courts.
• A DPP that is appointed by the President with an independent budget.
• An EBC that is allocated with independent budgets. Commissioners include members of political parties that obtained over 25 per cent of the votes in the previous elections.
• Provision for a ‘run-off’ election should there be a hung Parliament.
Conclusion: The major change has to be a fundamental shift away from the Westminster system to the system of proportional representation (PR). There are over 40 nations that now employ PR to select their governments, out, of the 56 in the British Commonwealth, including South Africa. This is compared to a few nations that still cling to the Westminster model. Elections in T&T are based on the winner-take-all principle: voters for the candidate who receives the most votes win representation; voters for the other candidates win nothing. This system is unjust and unnecessary. It is unjust because it leaves minorities unrepresented, with a resulting impact on majority rule as well as fair representation. It is unnecessary because we have opportunities at local, state, and national levels to join the vast majority of mature democracies that have already adopted systems of proportional representation. Proportional representation is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to their share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100 per cent of the representation to a 50.1 per cent majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation. There is a broad range of PR systems. Some are based on voting for political parties, and others for candidates. Some allow very small groupings of voters to win seats; others require higher thresholds.