EDITORIAL - Deepen the debate on term limit

THIS NEWSPAPER reserves, for now, its position on the Golding administration's proposal for term limit on the post of prime minister, for which legislation is now before the Parliament.

We, however, believe there is need for deep debate and substantial legislative protection of the change if, indeed, Prime Minister Bruce Golding is convinced of the efficacy of the idea.

At present, under Section 70 of the Constitution, the governor general, "acting on his own discretion", chooses as the prime minister the member of the House "who, in his judgement, is best able to command the confidence of a majority" of the members. Usually, that person is the leader of the political party that wins the majority of seats in a general election.

What is surprising about this section of the Constitution is that it is not entrenched. It requires neither special majorities nor consultative approaches for its amendment. Or, put baldly, Section 70 can be amended by simple majorities in the House and the Senate.

Appointment

In that regard, Prime Minister Golding and his governing Jamaica Labour Party can argue that the Founding Fathers did not intend the legislature to be slave to the process they set down nearly half a century ago for the appointment of the prime minister.

There is, though, the possibility of a counter-argument that the framers of the Constitution were so certain of the strength, and wisdom, of the convention of choosing a prime minister in the Westminster system that no one expected a veering from it, so felt no need to entrench the process.

Whatever the intention of 1962, the likely ease with which Mr Golding's party will be able to amend Section 70 seems to us to be the essential case for the administration to proceed with thought and, we dare say, circumspection. There should be, too, a heavy dose of consultation.

The philosophical basis for the change, as has been articulated by Mr Golding, and recently his justice minister, Dorothy Lightbourne, is that term limit will help to strengthen democracy "by encouraging the infusion of new leadership at the highest level of government". Specifically, no one would be able to serve for more than nine years as prime minister, except in the circumstance where the threshold would be exceeded in the last of more than one period in office.

Fundamental point

This may be a great idea and good for the society. But there is a certain resonance to the argument that it is not a proposition for only Mr Golding, his party and parliamentary colleagues to determine.

Indeed, a more fundamental point that is worthy of serious discussion is the lack of entrenchment of Section 70. In other words, this constitutional amendment of high-minded intent can, if it is passed, be easily overturned by a new parliament, or, if it is so inclined, the same one.

If the administration believes that this change represents a profound contribution to a stronger democracy it may, perhaps, consider it necessary not only to persuade Jamaicans of its potential efficacy, but of the need to deeply entrench the amendment, thereby putting it beyond the whim of a capricious majority.

The parallel is not precise, but Canada's Stephen Harper comes to mind. He passed legislation fixing his country's election date, but ignored the provision once it was in his interest so to do.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.