Prime Minister Patrick Manning told supporters in Point Fortin Monday night it is time for a review of the role and functions of the President, saying the 1976 Republican Constitution gives the president too much power.And he dismissed criticism of the latest constitutional reform proposals, saying it is time for the country to have an Executive President.
Manning pointed out that under the present system the president, who is elected to a five-year term by the Parliament - has the power and responsibility to appoint a Chief Justice, a chairman of the Public Service Commission, head of the Teaching Service Commission and the Auditor General.
“The question arises, should a president who does not derive his power by popular vote from the people should exercise the power that the president now has. The time has come for us to review this,” he told the PNM faithful.
And he dismissed those who say an Executive President would have too much power, noting that such a leader would still be chosen by the people and that the real power would lie in the Cabinet.
Earlier this month he told another PNM meeting that he's in no hurry to pass the new constitution and expects it to be ready by 2012 in time for the next general election.
He said the new constitution should reflect the history and culture of the people and suggested that "technocrats and intellectuals" won't create the new document because previous constitutional committees consisting of academics wrote documents that had to be changed after they were presented to Parliament.
"The approach was fundamentally flawed. If you set up academics alone, it will be flawed," he declared.
Manning laid the latest (third) draft of the constitution in Parliament in January and was roundly criticized in a Newsday editorial for presenting a document that undermines the "most universal tenets of constitutional accountability."
He made the first draft at a PNM convention in July last year and later presented it to the House of Representatives.
Read the story: Manning unveils constitution reform plan...
That first draft caused shocked reaction from constitutional experts and political commentators. Former President Sir Ellis Clarke disowned it. "I don’t know whose draft it is, it certainly is not mine and I don’t think anybody on the round table will claim it. It’s nobody’s baby," Sir Ellis said.
Read the story: Strong reaction to constitution reform...Newsday said the third draft gives too much power to the proposed Executive President by replacing the current Westminster-styled Government with one closer to the American Presidential system.
The draft proposes that the leader of the party winning most seats in a general election would become the Executive President as a combined Head of State/Head of Government, who will then appoint top constitutional officers such as the Ombudsman, 30 of the 37 Senators, and members of the Salaries Review Commission.
It would mean a partisan political leader would be handed the power to make these critical appointments, which would undermine the impartiality of the respective officers.
The draft also allows MPs to veto the selection of a Chief Justice and creates a Ministry of Justice to let the government administer the Judiciary, thereby eroding the separation of powers that currently establish three independent arms of government, including the Judiciary.
It also proposed that the current independent Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must get the approval of the Attorney-General in matters of "official secrets, terrorism and State-to-State relations".
Under the latest draft the Executive President would appoint permanent secretaries from the private sector on contract who would have to answer to their employer. It also erodes accountability by removing directors of state companies from the list of personnel who must declare their assets to the Integrity Commission.
Cabinet would comprise a maximum of eight elected MPs and the Executive President, with the president having the authority to bring others into the cabinet.
That presents an opportunity for the president to ignore the elected representatives of the people and carry out his/her personal agenda, without reference to the national Parliament does. It opens the possibility of making Parliament impotent.
1 comment:
The Prime Minister's disdain for academics and constitutional experts likely reflects a distaste for being critically evaluated by people who have spent their lives studying constitutional documents. There is nothing wrong with involving 'ordinary' people in the constitutional process, but when the experts look at the product that is being proposed and decry it as passionately as they seem to, it speaks to the documents inadequacy, or even its hidden agenda. If it is an executive president that Manning seeks, he ought to look at the US model more closely - the US system operates precisely because the President is SEPARATE from Congress and the judiciary. What he is proposing is to have the President and the Prime Minister be the same person. This will effectively do the OPPOSITE of what the US Republican system does. For an accountable and responsible government, the Executive, Judiciary, and Parliament ought to be separate. Let the people determine the president in a separate vote, so that non-partisans can participate. At a minimum, it could allow for a PNM parliament and a UNC President that would keep each other in check. When the Democrats swept the US Congress, it was not only because of the 'virtues' of their party - it was because the American electorate were given an opportunity to vote on the trajectory of the Republican President Bush, half-way through his term. If Trinidad is to go down an executive Presidential road, then it ought to be one that will INCREASE the democratic accountability to the voters - not one that will INCREASE the powers of an already powerful Prime Minister.
Post a Comment