Executive MPs?

By Peter Espeut

There is at least one member of parliament (MP) who is confused about his job description. Damion Crawford, MP for East Rural St Andrew, wants the authority and the power to determine which roads in his constituency get fixed. He argues that he has been elected by the people, and that such decisions should not be in the hands of unelected people like the officials of the National Works Agency (NWA).

But what was he elected to do? Civics 101 would teach him that in our Westminster system, there are three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. He must know that he was elected with the principal role of passing laws to benefit his constituents. Despite how they may feel, MPs are not little kings in their little kingdoms, benevolent rulers over their doting subjects.

MPs do not have any executive power to build schools or fix roads or upgrade health centres; that power resides in the executive minister of education, the executive minister of works, and the executive minister of health, tempered by the super-executive minister of finance. Should MPs have this executive power, they would be in constant clash with the Cabinet (the executive).

MP Crawford must know this, because he is also 'Junior Minister Crawford' - part of the executive. Does he want his portfolio responsibility of entertainment to be subject to the whims of 63 executive MPs islandwide? And he must know that although the staff of the NWA are not elected, they fall under the supervision of the minister of works, who is elected. Damion Crawford is wrong: decisions about which roads are fixed are not in the hands of unelected people.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

The constitutional role of an MP is to pass laws in Parliament to benefit his constituents, and make representation on their behalf before the executive branch of Government. To give MPs executive power within his constituency would be to breach the principle of the separation of powers.

But I understand Minister Crawford's confusion, for MPs are constantly besieged by their constituents for houses, jobs, or to 'let off a money', all which fall outside of their power to provide from the resources of the State. MPs need to be able to 'let off a money', otherwise their chances of re-election will be slim; and so political donors appear, providing a slush fund to be used at the MP's discretion. They donate in secret, and thereby buy influence in secret. Is what consenting adults do in private legitimate?

Each MP is given J$14 million annually as part of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) to do executive-type work within his or her constituency. This gives the MP the mistaken impression that it is his job to provide community centres, basic schools, indigent housing, assistance with school fees and books, and to clean gullies and drains. Obviously, MPs would like $100 million or $200 million each to be able to do more, and it a short jump from there to wanting executive power. The CDF is a bad idea and breaches the principle of the separation of powers. It should be abolished.

CONFUSING THE ROLES

Even though the main constitutional role of MPs is to pass legislation, there would be few constituents who would ask their MPs to take a law to Parliament on their behalf. They are confused as to the role of their MP, and the MPs encourage this confusion.

But it is also true that the Cabinet (the executive) has usurped the role of the MP by giving itself the role of bringing legislation to Parliament. It is very difficult for MPs to bring a private bill to Parliament, because, first of all, MPs do not have access to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which is responsible for drafting all legislation. No wonder some MPs (in return?) want to usurp the executive role of Cabinet!

Not having the clout to grab executive power, MPs then trespass on the role of parish councillors. MPs have no business dealing with roads and drains and sidewalks; those are local matters. But then, with their legislative powers usurped by the Cabinet, they must appear to be doing something - to 'have a use'. In their grab for executive power, some MPs even want to abolish parish councils altogether!

Even though we have operated for 50-odd years with our Independence Constitution, we have not succeeded in resolving its inherent contradictions, some of which are fundamental. Damion Crawford's confusion about his role is understandable. He must advocate to reinforce the separation of powers, not further confuse the different and distinct roles of the three branches of Government.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and environmentalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.