The PM and his powers

Robert Buddan, Contributor

It is generally felt that the powers of a prime minister in the Westminster system are too great. Jamaica has some useful test cases of this, and they are evident right now. Mr Golding was one who thought prime ministers had too much power. So, he opted for a separation-of-powers model. The Gleaner's 'Gavel', of last Monday reminded us of his signal statement of a few years ago.

In 1995, Mr Golding declared, "The Jamaican Constitution upholds the principle of separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary; this principle does not exist only for uncontroversial cases. Perhaps more so, it exists to ensure the rights of all Jamaicans. Judges and juries must be left to undertake their work without external interference."

Yet as prime minister, Mr Golding has shown little regard for this idea. He is having run-ins with the legal fraternity over his recent statements about court costs. It is used as evidence that he is interfering with the judiciary and that it is all about politics. He is peeved by the award of costs against his colleague, Shahine Robinson, we hear.

At odds with Christie

Mr Golding is on the opposite side of the contractor general, who wants the sale of Sandals Whitehouse stopped because he has detected irregularities and impropriety over how the whole deal has been approached. There seems to be some politics here too. The sale of the hotel is being made by Golding's government in something of a sweetheart deal, some say.

Mr Golding failed to apply checks and balances by appointing a seemingly partisan chair of the commission of enquiry into his suspected abuse of power as prime minister, in privately engaging a foreign firm using the Government's privileges for party purposes. That was clearly about politics too, since Christopher Coke and his gang were/are loyal and indispensable supporters of the ruling party.

All of this has come against the Vasciannie affair when legal minds are sure the prime minister violated the Constitution by interfering with the Public Service Commission, and in fact, fired it. Once again, it is suspected that politics was behind the whole thing. Mr Golding and Professor Stephen Vasciannie had a parting of ways which Mr Golding has, apparently, not got over.

In fact, the attorney general has declared support, not for separation of powers at all, but for the triumph of politics over law, the very thing democracy was crafted to prevent. In explaining her actions in the Coke affair, the attorney general had turned separation of powers on its head to declare in the Senate that the Jamaican executive, not the courts, had a perfect right to decide whether Christopher Coke should have been extradited. It was extraordinary.

Power is Relative

The power of the prime minister is relative to the power of his own Parliament. Our system has evolved institutions to check the power of the prime minister. They are the courts, Parliament, an independent civil service and Public Service Commission, the contractor general's office, the Electoral Commission, the public defender, and the power of investigative commissions. All of these, by law or convention, either check and balance the prime minister or exercise power independently of him.

Beyond these official public offices are those bodies of society like political parties, the media, business, professional and civil society organisations and the voters. It is true that they can be manipulated, have their own axes to grind, have their special interests to protect, have their biases to nurture, and have their own politics to play.

It is precisely because of these self-compromising situations that these interests can be manipulated. The official public bodies like Parliament, the Office of the Contractor General (OCG), the courts, and so on, then get blamed for being weak or for operating by English law or not having sufficient independence or powers of investigation and prosecution and the like. They might not have, but they could be more effective as they are if, as a society, we were more uncompromising about right and wrong.

In Golding's case, he can manipulate his powers as prime minister because he can play these interests off against each other politically. I don't believe he will get away with it. Too many interests have axes to grind against him, but he has been able to survive.

Power in Society

Golding's power is, in part, derived officially from the Constitution and the political and administrative powers of his office. But it is also derived from the powerful in society, from the powerful dons and their gangs to the powerful super patrons of business and finance. It is derived from the political faithful and the party machine. It is derived from society's biases and the ideological machines that are effective in mobilising those biases. We give the prime minister his power. And we check and balance each other's ability to effectively limit his abuse of power.

Some are willing to accept an apology from Golding for lying to the nation in Parliament. Some are willing to go back to work in partnership with his Government and give it their stamp of credibility. Some are willing to accept a commission of enquiry whose independence was questionable from the start. How can we expect Parliament to be effective in checking the prime minister's power when the powerful are not interested in backing Parliament; and how can we expect the OCG to be effective when he gets no support from the powerful sections of society over a major transaction involving one of their own.

The contractor general has pointed out that Golding was the one to have crafted the commission of the OCG in 1982 and that the OCG was not subject to any authority, being an independent commission of Parliament. It appears to be another case where Golding says one thing and then does another. He championed a fearless and independent contractor general's office that would investigate corruption. But now he and his point man, Daryl Vaz, would like to ignore the checks and balances provided by that office.

Does any of this matter to Golding's social, economic and political allies who talk about the rule of law when it suits them?

I have seen well-meaning and decent prime ministers who have been powerless against these forces. They have blocked them at every turn and hounded them out of office. Power in society is not fully known from the laws and formal institutions of government. It is embedded in the economic and social interests of the powerful forces outside and around prime ministers, and in the personal and social networks and institutions through which they incestuously cross-breed and carry out their mutual agenda of interests.

So the prime minister will go ahead with the widely questioned Sandals Whitehouse deal, that looks very good for Gorstew. But he won't commission an enquiry into the Tivoli massacre, even though the public defender has called for one. The powerful don't think one is important to the people of Tivoli. Social and political power can work together or against each other. Therein lies the secret of the power of the prime minister.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm.