ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM – PART ONE
By Yves Ephraim
It’s a new year!
And with that comes the hope that things will get better.
Last year, our Attorney General announced that he intends to consider reforms to our 44 year old constitution.
To that end, I thought that this will be a good time to stoke the debate surrounding some of the egregious constitutional issues that I personally would like reformed.
I do have a lot to say on the matter of constitutional reform so I will embark on a series of posts dealing with my various reforms, starting here with part one.
Before I delve into my reforms, I would simply like to remind you that one of the primary functions of a country’s constitution, is to establish clearly what are the rights of the individual citizen.
It should be well understood that individual rights are established as protections from overreach or abuse by the state and other citizens.
It is my opinion that the constitution must be even more watchful of the state because of its monopoly on violence and it susceptibility to being subverted through the manipulation of those who control the state.
One of my most interesting observations is how people generally give blind trust to government officials.
You probably figured that I am naturally skeptical of all government officials. I make no secret of that. I believe we should all have a healthy dose of skepticism.
Why am I skeptical?
Because, I learnt and observed that “there is no temptation taken you than that which is common to man”; and that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. I am also aware that the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked. And that includes myself.
Further, I know for a fact that government officials are not angels, therefore I ought to treat them with the same level of suspicion that I would a stranger who is lurking outside of my property.
Why on earth would you think that a uniform or a tie could transform a criminal into a saint?
Would you walk up to a stranger and voluntarily give him your bank account details if he asked?
Why then would you gladly share the same information with the same person if he dresses in a government uniform or tie?
Tell me how does that makes any sense?
For this reason, our constitution should by default be suspicious of those who wield the power of the state and should introduce safeguards to avoid abuse.
The constitution should therefore recognise that the power of the state is controlled by humans like me who are frail, fallible, and impressionable.
Getting a government position does not turn humans into angels!
Because our leaders and government officials are by no means angels, our constitution must safeguard the state from inadvertently being held hostage by criminals and thugs.
I do not think that anybody would argue that Hitler was a thug.
The ultimate aim of the constitution therefore, in my opinion, is to promote harmony, goodwill and justice. It should also promote the national interest of “Empowering the People”.
Now that I have laid the foundation, I will now discuss my first set of suggestions for constitutional reform:
1. Reformation of the selection criteria for the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and;
2. Reformation to limit the number of elected representative in the Cabinet.
I expand each below.
1. SELECTION OF PARLIMENTARY HEADS
In my reading on this subject, I recall learning that one of the roles of the Speaker of the House is to protect the voices of the minority, regardless of party.
All representatives in the House should have equal say to express the concerns of their constituents. I have seen how the majority party has manipulated the system so that the voice of the minority is suppressed while the “Ayes have it” without any strenuous debate.
As someone who has operated in the highest leadership positions for various organization, I have learnt the benefit of letting all ideas contend. In fact, I have found that as a leader, it is always more important to make the RIGHT DECISION rather than BEING RIGHT.
Sometimes the best course of action is not a single idea but rather a merger of multiple ideas.
I would recommend that the Speaker of the House be nominated by the opposition leader of the House with 2/3 vote by the members of the House.
I chose 2/3s vote deliberately because it is crucial that this nominee commands the respect of the vast majority of the members of the House. It also makes sure that the opposition MUST nominate someone who is respected by most.
I would further add a mechanism to counter any attempt by the majority party to deliberately reject the oppositions nominations for the sake of creating an impasse. I would set a number of rejected nominees after which, the leader of the opposition can assign an existing MP to temporarily act as Speaker, until the House finds a suitable candidate.
I think this approach will offer a greater chance of selecting a Speaker that is more likely to be neutral.
In relation to the Senate, I would legislatively discourage rubber stamping of the decisions of the Lower House. I would not allow the Senate membership to be selected by political parties. Senate members will be chosen by civil society like the Chamber of Commerce, the Labour Unions, Ecclesiastical Association, Environmental Groups; Bar Association, social groups, etc.
I see the Senate as a backstop to keep the political directorate from voting for things that clearly were not in the national interest, like for example the acquisition of the Alpha Nero.
2. LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE IN CABINET
I recall sometime ago the residents of Bendals were suffering from the health hazards and inconveniences of the government’s quarry set up there.
Their representative at the time was caught in a dilemma on whether to lead the charge for his constituents against the government or whether he needed to tow the line of the Cabinet of which he was a part.
He eventually chose to support the Cabinet which left the people of Bendals without any legitimate representation in Parliament.
The situation gave rise to the constituents forming their own group to fight for their cause, alone.
This should have never been the case, since the whole purpose of having a representative is to have someone to raise the concerns of the constituents in the parliamentary forum where those concerns can be effectively debated and addressed.
In this situation the constituents were denied representation.
Another reason for limiting MPs being part of Cabinet, is that being simultaneously a parliamentary representative and a Cabinet member creates an automatic conflict of interest.
Based on the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, this representative cannot be seen to go contrary to the Cabinet’s wishes without the risk of censure.
To correct and minimize this conflict of interest, other than the prime minister, no more than two MPs should be allowed to form the Cabinet.
In my opinion, for a country as small as ours, there are far too many ministers.
I am tired of seeing Cabinet positions doled out as rewards for successfully contesting elections bids rather than assigned to individuals who have demonstrable capabilities to skillfully handle the affairs of state.
Many who become ministers, I personally would not trust to run my little business, much less the State.
See you in part two.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
