Robert Buddan, ContributorPORTIA SIMPSON Miller wants governance for community-based development, greater moral probity, activist constituency representation, and stronger institutions to channel economic benefits to the poor. Bruce Golding has repeated considerations for term limits, fixed election dates, and separation of powers. Mrs. Simpson Miller wants to empower people. Mr. Golding wants to limit government's power.
Term limits, fixed election dates and separation of powers are all part of a constitutional package that go together with presidential systems. Constitutional reform should not be a choice between parliamentary and presidential systems but between governance that helps people as distinct from that which does not. Both parliamentary and presidential systems are different expressions of democratic governance. Neither is a special arrangement for development governance.
Term limits offer no direct benefit to people. It is designed for another purpose. Under separation of powers the legislature cannot dissolve the executive. This inhibits executive accountability to the legislature and so term limits are established as the ultimate limit upon presidential power. Even so, the founding fathers of the United States were not sure of the wisdom of placing limits on presidential terms. It was only imposed in 1948 after Franklyn Roosevelt had won four consecutive terms and his opponents knew of no other way of removing him.
Fixed election dates have no direct benefit to people either. Since the legislature cannot dissolve the executive, a president is sure of lasting his term barring impeachment. But, just as two-party parliamentary systems rarely produce votes of no confidence in an executive, presidential systems rarely impeach presidents. The term of the executive is fixed by the constitution because the executive is not dependent on support or lack of support in the legislature. If the legislature was able to dissolve the executive, it would be able to do so at any time and fixing election dates would contradict and undermine its freedom to do so.
Separation of powers has no direct benefit to people. It is justified when a president is directly elected by all the people and owes his tenure to the nation as a whole rather than to the members of the legislature who are elected by smaller electoral districts. The logic is that since executive and legislature are constituted on separate electoral bases, neither should have the power to dissolve the other. This is even more justifiable in federal systems where legislatures also represent states, and executives represent the composite of all. Separation of powers would only make sense for us under a West Indian federation.
PRESIDENTIALISM AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Golding is, in effect, asking for a presidential system. But we would still have to decide on the appropriate limits to the president's term. Would there be a limit of two four-year consecutive terms (U.S.), one six-year term (Mexico), two consecutive six year-terms (Venezuela), or two non-consecutive four-year terms (Dominican Republic and Haiti)? None of the above solves developmental problems anyway.
In some countries two-term limits are regarded as too restrictive. In a current controversy, Nigeria's president, who has done much better than his predecessors, wants to run for a third term but cannot. Non-consecutive two-term limits are actually ridiculous. René Preval in Haiti was barred by the constitution from serving a second consecutive term in 2000 only to be overwhelmingly returned in 2006. But he can only serve until 2010. What long-term development can this popular president achieve in only four years?
In the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez first served from 1996-2000, but was then required by the constitution to step aside. The economy was robust under his leadership. It ran into crisis under his successor and Fernandez returned to win a popular mandate in 2004 but has to restart the economy all over again. Bill Clinton was still young, successful and popular enough to serve a third term and wanted to, but was constitutionally disqualified from doing so. This has actually given new energy to a movement to repeal the constitutional two-term limit.
INFLEXIBILITY AND FIXED ELECTION DATES
It would be much easier for the Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ) to administer elections when dates are preset. Understandably, Director of Elections Danville Walker supports fixed election dates. But fixing election dates can narrow our best options for deciding when to have elections. For instance, had election dates been fixed for anytime between January and March 2007, a campaign would disrupt the Cricket World Cup at much cost to the economy. The present arrangement gives us needed flexibility.
Each year, we have to contend with hurricane seasons between June and November. Each year, we try to avoid elections in the tourism season from December to March. As hurricanes become more frequent and destructive and tourism becomes more vital we should avoid trying to predict nature and risk the economy.
Lessons exist in our history. Jamaica's third elections, scheduled for 1954, had to be postponed until 1955 because of the impact of a hurricane. We cannot predict and fix into law, the best and worst times for elections. We must remember that we operate a tropical democracy and economy, not an American one.
Politics, too, is unpredictable. The JLP demanded and got early elections in 1980. Norman Manley called an early election in 1962, after losing the referendum on federation. Michael Manley became ill and P.J. Patterson was able to get his own mandate through early elections in 1993, much as Portia Simpson Miller might exercise her right to do in 2006.
GRIDLOCK AND SEPARATION OF POWERS
The current fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico is timely for our debate. Government and the opposition-controlled legislature have failed to agree on a budget for two years running, forcing a huge deficit and requiring new taxes and loans to keep government operating. The crisis has seriously hurt the economy. Sales taxes have been imposed for the first time and corporate taxes increased. Over 40 state agencies had to close, as did schools and many tourists cancelled hotel reservations.
Puerto Rico still does not have a new budget. Small, dependent countries cannot inspire international creditors and investors if they cannot pass budgets on time. This kind of situation is neither practical nor sensible for small, dependent democracies and economies.
The Dominican Republic held mid-term elections on May 16. President Fernandez has won a majority in Parliament for the first time and this will allow him to overcome his minority presidency of 1996 to 2000 and since 2004. He has spent much of his time bitterly complaining about an uncooperative and hostile opposition congress.
Much of Haiti's problems with governability relates to gridlock as well. Battles between executive and legislature caused Preval's previous government to operate without a legislature for 17 months. He governed by decree. Preval's party did not win a majority in the legislature in April. International donors are holding up US$1.7 billion to see how executive and legislative relations will fare.
These Caribbean cases alone suggest that our constitutions must reflect our history, experiences and circumstances. Our draft constitution is a good and workable one. We cannot afford the luxury of unending debates while the rights of people are being denied under the existing constitution. Let us trust ourselves to make the draft constitution work and let us trust a future and possibly wiser generation to devise a more perfect one.
Robert Buddan is a lecturer in the Department of Government at the University of the
West Indies. Email him at robert.buddan@uwimona.edu.jm.
