Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar laid down the law with her Cabinet last Wednesday when she called a special cabinet meeting. Based on her prime-time press conference, it was apparent that they discussed the issue of the constitutional doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament.
According to her, all ministers spoke on the subject and reaffirmed their support for this constitutional doctrine. As a consequence, there were no dismissals and no resignations from the Cabinet.
It was clear that the position adopted by the Congress of the People (COP) after its National Council meeting last Sunday was untenable with the constitutional position of the Government to which they belong.
The COP position as articulated last Sunday stated as follows:
- The UNC breached the agreement and has admitted this—the UNC must therefore fix this breach
- It is up to the UNC leader to fix this breach
- The COP is not an invitee to the Partnership. We are a parent of the Partnership and we will not be leaving but to stay in the Partnership and insist eyeball to eyeball that the UNC must fix the issues facing the Partnership in the interest of providing the highest quality of governance to the people of Trinidad and Tobago
- In the present instance, we will not accept any alternative compensation for the breach of the agreement by the UNC. We will not sacrifice principle for position
- Until this matter is resolved, the COP reserves the right to revisit our relationship with all the units that form the PP
- The COP is therefore asserting its right publicly to take an independent position on policy issues
- Our cabinet ministers have been mandated by the National Council to remain in Cabinet to ensure that the policies, programmes and in particular the values of the COP are carried through, implemented and injected into the institutions of Government
It was apparent that the COP was prepared to challenge the stability of the Government by stating that they would take an independent position with regards to policy which would have been a dagger aimed at the heart of the People’s Partnership.
When item six is read in conjunction with item seven, there can be no doubt that the COP was acting on the misconstruction that they could adopt “an independent position on policy issues” and at the same time “remain in the Cabinet.”
When item six is read in conjunction with item seven, there can be no doubt that the COP was acting on the misconstruction that they could adopt “an independent position on policy issues” and at the same time “remain in the Cabinet.”
At that point their argument was defeated as the constitutional doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament would have been threatened. Our constitution is established upon a Westminster-Whitehall foundation in which the Prime Minister dominates the Cabinet and the Cabinet dominates the Parliament.
There is no room for independent policy positions while enjoying simultaneous membership in the Cabinet. The constitutional doctrine of collective responsibility rests on three main rules that define it as follows:
There is no room for independent policy positions while enjoying simultaneous membership in the Cabinet. The constitutional doctrine of collective responsibility rests on three main rules that define it as follows:
- The Confidence Rule in which the Cabinet must enjoy the confidence of a majority of elected members in the Parliament
- The Confidentiality Rule in which all documents and discussions in Cabinet must remain confidential
- The Unanimity Rule in which the Cabinet can only speak with one voice
Until such time as we change our constitution, these are the rules of the game. When the People’s Partnership signed over the potential leadership of the Government to Kamla Persad-Bissessar on April 21, 2010, in the Fyzabad Accord, they were providing her with their consent to exercise those powers for their coalition that were really designed for a two-party system.
Last Wednesday, they were forced to either accept or reject what they had signed in their solemn pledge to the population.
The COP has now come to a cross in the road whereby their publicly stated position was defeated in the Cabinet when all members upheld the doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament.
The COP has now come to a cross in the road whereby their publicly stated position was defeated in the Cabinet when all members upheld the doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament.
Prakash Ramadhar had the opportunity at that time to reject the doctrine of collective responsibility and walk out of the meeting having tendered his resignation. He chose not to do so and with it went the threat “to take an independent position on policy issues.
The Marlene Coudray issue was overtaken by the more serious issue of the continuation of the government. The COP was forced to choose and they backed down on their threat. As the drama escalated, Ramadhar was always shadowed by his COP cabinet colleague Anil Roberts who consistently undermined his every statement.
This presented a fractured COP image in the public domain and weakened the party’s position. It demonstrated that the party was not united on its own issue which was one of the by-products of an open, direct election for the political leadership of the party whereby the election campaign never really ended.
In the end, Ramadhar backed down when the Prime Minister raised the issue of collective responsibility and Roberts has come away from this by daring his party to discipline him.
The Marlene Coudray issue was overtaken by the more serious issue of the continuation of the government. The COP was forced to choose and they backed down on their threat. As the drama escalated, Ramadhar was always shadowed by his COP cabinet colleague Anil Roberts who consistently undermined his every statement.
This presented a fractured COP image in the public domain and weakened the party’s position. It demonstrated that the party was not united on its own issue which was one of the by-products of an open, direct election for the political leadership of the party whereby the election campaign never really ended.
In the end, Ramadhar backed down when the Prime Minister raised the issue of collective responsibility and Roberts has come away from this by daring his party to discipline him.
The party that proposed “new politics” finds itself having to explain why going “eyeball to eyeball” with the Prime Minister ended up with them blinking first.
No comments:
Post a Comment