This is not an argument for Yes or No based on any particular issue. It's a practical question regarding choices and options.
The debate over what should and should not be in the proposed New Constitution is over. We have a bill. Two-thirds of the Parliament have voted for it. The public will be voting on it in November.
As such, if we're voting, we have ONLY TWO CHOICES: Either we vote yes and get the new constitution, or we vote no and keep the old one. Pick one – old constitution or new constitution. There is no third option on Nov. 25th.
So, here is my question: Are those voting "no" saying that the new constitution is WORSE than the current one? It's not about what is the best, most ideal, most perfect Constitution. It's not about your personal wish-list for constitutional provisions. The perfect constitution is not on the ballot on Nov. 25. So, the question is, which option is better?
I've heard opposition members applaud various provisions in the new Constitution, but still say that they are voting "no". Why? Is there something in the new Constitution that is worse that what exists in the old one? Or is it just that they don't think it goes far enough? Because "not going far enough" doesn't seem to be a reason to vote "no," not if you see overall improvement. If the new Constitution makes "one small step" instead of "one giant leap," shouldn't you, at this point, support the small step?
What am I missing?
14 September, 2009
ISSUE #2: Term Limits (or, if you can't beat 'em, block 'em)
Term limits are an attractive argument at first blush, but not so easy to implement in parliamentary democracies.
In presidential systems like the USA, its easy. You just say "you cant stand for election more than twice." No, problem, because people run for President in the USA. Its an election where the entire country votes for 1 person or the other.
In parliamentary democracies, (i.e. prime minister systems) it doesn't work that way. Ralph and Arnhim don't run for prime minister – they run in their respective constituencies. so, Ralph is elected only by the people of north central windward, and Arnhim is elected only by the people of East Kingstown. Then, the party with the most seats selects the Prime Minister from among those who won seats. The people don't elect the Prime Minister, the party does.
Why does this matter? Lets work it through. How exactly would you effectively stop someone from being Prime Minister for more than X-number of terms? That person is not running for the post of Prime Minister. You can't do it by limiting the number of times a person runs in his constituency, because the number of years you are a representative and the number of years that you are a prime minister are not the same (Ralph, Arnhim and Sir James all held their seats for longer than they were PMs)
Interestingly, the USA does not limit the number of years you can hold your seat, which is why Ed Kennedy could be representative for Massachusetts for 40-something years. You can be elected Senator till you roll over and die. Robert Byrd has been representing West Virginia for over 50 years straight! 25 Senators have represented their state for over 33 years! (See the full list here).
OK, so you can't limit PM terms by limiting times you can run (as in the USA) because you are not running for Prime Minister. How about if you limit the number of times a party can make you its leader? that would cause other Constitutional issues, as a violation of the people's right to assemble/freedom of speech, etc. Do you want the Constitution interfering with the internal decision-making of a political party? Also, it would simply be cosmetic. The party would symbolically name someone else while the "real power" resided elsewhere.
OK... so how about just saying "no person shall be prime minister for more than X-number of years"? again, you have a problem: Lets say, for example, that the constitution said that no one could be PM for more than 10 years. Then lets apply that to our history: Suppose that was in place during the NDP's 17 years in office. After Sir James served 10, he would step down as PM, but not as Rep. for the Northern Grenadines!... he would not be the PM in name, but who do you think would be calling the shots in cabinet, where he would still be a member? Or if Ralph stepped down as PM but kept his seat in North Central; who would be the real PM? Sir Louis? please... Ralph would still be in the cabinet room, and he would still be the unquestioned decision-maker for the government. In fact, he could still be minister of finance, national security, grenadines affairs, airports and sea ports, etc. How would this change anything?
Constitutionally, a prime minister is accountable to the legislature (parliament) and his ruling party. When his party loses, he loses. He/She is selected by his party, not by the people. In a presidential system, the president is accountable directly to the people. He/She can be in power, even when his party is in the minority in the congress (as happens many times in USA).
I don't think you can effectively impose term limits on a prime ministerial parliamentary democracy. I am not aware of any prime minister system that has term limits (that doesn't mean that they don't exist). I know, for e.g., that England, India, Japan, Turkey, Australia and Canada have PMs, but no term limits (see a partial list of term limit countries HERE. Notice that all the term limit countries have Presidents, not Prime Ministers). We would have to completely revamp our entire system of governance to have effective term limits.
That's the Constitutional point. Here is the practical one: in the Caribbean, the electorate is usually tired of you by the 3rd term, at the latest. Our history shows that we have an almost automatic 3-term limit. Here are the longest serving PMs for the English-speaking Caribbean, since independence:
Antigua – 12 years (Vere Bird)
Bahamas – 19 years (Sir Lynden Pindling)
Barbados – 13 years (Owen Arthur)
Belize – 9 years (Said Musa)
Dominica – 14 years (Eugina Charles)
Grenada – 11 years (Eric Gairy)
Guyana (presidential) – 10 years (and counting) (Baharat Jagdeo)
Jamaica – 14 years (PJ Patterson)
St. Kitts – 14 years (and counting) (Denzil Douglas)
St. Lucia – 14 years (Sir John Compton)
SVG – 16 years (Sir James Mitchel)
Trinidad – 20 years (Eric Williams)
Only 3 countries in the history of the independent Caribbean have more than 15 years (3 5-year terms): TnT, Bahamas and SVG. Dominica came close with Eugina Charles. Sir James barely cleared 15 years, and did so without the majority of the votes cast! That's it. Most PMs serve 2 terms, and a few exceptional ones go for 3. But we dont have any history at all of PMs serving forever. We vote them out.
Seems to be working thus far...
In presidential systems like the USA, its easy. You just say "you cant stand for election more than twice." No, problem, because people run for President in the USA. Its an election where the entire country votes for 1 person or the other.
In parliamentary democracies, (i.e. prime minister systems) it doesn't work that way. Ralph and Arnhim don't run for prime minister – they run in their respective constituencies. so, Ralph is elected only by the people of north central windward, and Arnhim is elected only by the people of East Kingstown. Then, the party with the most seats selects the Prime Minister from among those who won seats. The people don't elect the Prime Minister, the party does.
Why does this matter? Lets work it through. How exactly would you effectively stop someone from being Prime Minister for more than X-number of terms? That person is not running for the post of Prime Minister. You can't do it by limiting the number of times a person runs in his constituency, because the number of years you are a representative and the number of years that you are a prime minister are not the same (Ralph, Arnhim and Sir James all held their seats for longer than they were PMs)
Interestingly, the USA does not limit the number of years you can hold your seat, which is why Ed Kennedy could be representative for Massachusetts for 40-something years. You can be elected Senator till you roll over and die. Robert Byrd has been representing West Virginia for over 50 years straight! 25 Senators have represented their state for over 33 years! (See the full list here).
OK, so you can't limit PM terms by limiting times you can run (as in the USA) because you are not running for Prime Minister. How about if you limit the number of times a party can make you its leader? that would cause other Constitutional issues, as a violation of the people's right to assemble/freedom of speech, etc. Do you want the Constitution interfering with the internal decision-making of a political party? Also, it would simply be cosmetic. The party would symbolically name someone else while the "real power" resided elsewhere.
OK... so how about just saying "no person shall be prime minister for more than X-number of years"? again, you have a problem: Lets say, for example, that the constitution said that no one could be PM for more than 10 years. Then lets apply that to our history: Suppose that was in place during the NDP's 17 years in office. After Sir James served 10, he would step down as PM, but not as Rep. for the Northern Grenadines!... he would not be the PM in name, but who do you think would be calling the shots in cabinet, where he would still be a member? Or if Ralph stepped down as PM but kept his seat in North Central; who would be the real PM? Sir Louis? please... Ralph would still be in the cabinet room, and he would still be the unquestioned decision-maker for the government. In fact, he could still be minister of finance, national security, grenadines affairs, airports and sea ports, etc. How would this change anything?
Constitutionally, a prime minister is accountable to the legislature (parliament) and his ruling party. When his party loses, he loses. He/She is selected by his party, not by the people. In a presidential system, the president is accountable directly to the people. He/She can be in power, even when his party is in the minority in the congress (as happens many times in USA).
I don't think you can effectively impose term limits on a prime ministerial parliamentary democracy. I am not aware of any prime minister system that has term limits (that doesn't mean that they don't exist). I know, for e.g., that England, India, Japan, Turkey, Australia and Canada have PMs, but no term limits (see a partial list of term limit countries HERE. Notice that all the term limit countries have Presidents, not Prime Ministers). We would have to completely revamp our entire system of governance to have effective term limits.
That's the Constitutional point. Here is the practical one: in the Caribbean, the electorate is usually tired of you by the 3rd term, at the latest. Our history shows that we have an almost automatic 3-term limit. Here are the longest serving PMs for the English-speaking Caribbean, since independence:
Antigua – 12 years (Vere Bird)
Bahamas – 19 years (Sir Lynden Pindling)
Barbados – 13 years (Owen Arthur)
Belize – 9 years (Said Musa)
Dominica – 14 years (Eugina Charles)
Grenada – 11 years (Eric Gairy)
Guyana (presidential) – 10 years (and counting) (Baharat Jagdeo)
Jamaica – 14 years (PJ Patterson)
St. Kitts – 14 years (and counting) (Denzil Douglas)
St. Lucia – 14 years (Sir John Compton)
SVG – 16 years (Sir James Mitchel)
Trinidad – 20 years (Eric Williams)
Only 3 countries in the history of the independent Caribbean have more than 15 years (3 5-year terms): TnT, Bahamas and SVG. Dominica came close with Eugina Charles. Sir James barely cleared 15 years, and did so without the majority of the votes cast! That's it. Most PMs serve 2 terms, and a few exceptional ones go for 3. But we dont have any history at all of PMs serving forever. We vote them out.
Seems to be working thus far...
ISSUE #1: Those Pesky "Inalienable Rights" (or, is God in YOUR Constitution?)
It's with more than a little amusement that I've watched the battle over whether to add the term "inalienable rights" to the proposed new Constitution. The charge has been led by the Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty (TIRL), although many other Vincentias jumped on the "inalienable" bandwagon as time went on.
To many, the phrase is a vaguely familiar one. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." We associate the phrase with the United States, and – as with all things American – we ascribe it automatic legitimacy as an ideal worth pursuing. Listening to our call-in show experts, I've heard the claim that it's good enough for the Americans, so it should be good enough for us too (or words to that effect).
But guess what? The term "inalienable rights" does NOT appear anywhere in the US Constitution! Nope, not one single place. Look it up. Instead, the words are in the US Declaration of Independence (using the word "UNalienable" instead of "INalienable"). This is a huge difference.
What's the difference? Well, first off, the Constitution sets forth your rights, not the Declaration of Independence. No one has ever gone to court saying "my Declaration of Independence rights have been violated." It can't happen. Your constitutional rights are in the Constitution, and that document doesn't speak of "inalienable rights" in the USA.
There are other rights in the Declaration of Independence that aren't in the Constitution, including the "right and duty" to "throw off Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" – in other words, the right to revolution. Imagine THAT in a civil constitution!
In fact, truth be told, the word "God" or "Creator" is also absent from the USA Constitution, as part of its well-known separation of church and state. There is no God in the USA Constitution whatsoever, and intentionally so. As such, you couldn't really argue a divine basis for any US Constitutional right. You can imply it, but you could also imply it in the Vincentian Constitution, without all this hullabaloo for an explicit mention.
But wait, there's more! What about these other inalienable rights advocated by TIRL, like the right to own property? According to Wikipedia, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence said:
Years later, Franklin famously said that "you don't have a right to happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch it yourself." Talk about a qualified and ill-defined "right"!
So there you have it. People using the most avowedly non-religious democratic Constitution in the world (USA's) as the basis to advocate the addition of religious language. People calling for explicit mention of a phrase by citing a document where it is not explicitly mentioned. High comedy.
Those of you who see a role for God, for inalienable rights generally, or for inalienable rights to property – please don't look to the US Constitution. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Maybe we should draft a Declaration of Independence too?
To many, the phrase is a vaguely familiar one. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." We associate the phrase with the United States, and – as with all things American – we ascribe it automatic legitimacy as an ideal worth pursuing. Listening to our call-in show experts, I've heard the claim that it's good enough for the Americans, so it should be good enough for us too (or words to that effect).
But guess what? The term "inalienable rights" does NOT appear anywhere in the US Constitution! Nope, not one single place. Look it up. Instead, the words are in the US Declaration of Independence (using the word "UNalienable" instead of "INalienable"). This is a huge difference.
What's the difference? Well, first off, the Constitution sets forth your rights, not the Declaration of Independence. No one has ever gone to court saying "my Declaration of Independence rights have been violated." It can't happen. Your constitutional rights are in the Constitution, and that document doesn't speak of "inalienable rights" in the USA.
There are other rights in the Declaration of Independence that aren't in the Constitution, including the "right and duty" to "throw off Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" – in other words, the right to revolution. Imagine THAT in a civil constitution!
In fact, truth be told, the word "God" or "Creator" is also absent from the USA Constitution, as part of its well-known separation of church and state. There is no God in the USA Constitution whatsoever, and intentionally so. As such, you couldn't really argue a divine basis for any US Constitutional right. You can imply it, but you could also imply it in the Vincentian Constitution, without all this hullabaloo for an explicit mention.
But wait, there's more! What about these other inalienable rights advocated by TIRL, like the right to own property? According to Wikipedia, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence said:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.However, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson decided to take the government out of the property business, and instead stick to the pursuit of happiness. The final draft of the Declaration of Independence reads:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Years later, Franklin famously said that "you don't have a right to happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch it yourself." Talk about a qualified and ill-defined "right"!
So there you have it. People using the most avowedly non-religious democratic Constitution in the world (USA's) as the basis to advocate the addition of religious language. People calling for explicit mention of a phrase by citing a document where it is not explicitly mentioned. High comedy.
Those of you who see a role for God, for inalienable rights generally, or for inalienable rights to property – please don't look to the US Constitution. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Maybe we should draft a Declaration of Independence too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
