Letter of the Day | Term limits and fixed election date

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Once again, the issues of term limits for the position of prime minister and fixed election dates have attracted public discussion, encouraged, no doubt, by recent poll findings. Both were manifesto commitments in the JLP campaign that I led for the 2007 election.

It is important to consider both process and procedure.

On December 7, 2010, I took to Parliament a constitutional amendment bill to impose term limits for the position of prime minister. However, the Opposition strongly opposed the measure, its leader declaring that it would deny the citizens of Jamaica the right to an individual of their choice continuing as prime minister for more than two terms.

The specific provision to be amended (Section 70) is not entrenched and therefore could have been amended by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament.

However, I chose not to proceed in this way for two reasons:

(a) Such an important alteration to traditional practice should not be made without at least bipartisan consensus;

(b) The Opposition could just as easily reverse the amendment if it came to power, and the issue could end up as a see-saw from one administration to the next.

I note that The Gleaner’s own position on term limits which it had reserved in its editorial of October 20, 2010, has evolved. Recent comments by some Opposition members suggest that its position on the matter may also have evolved.

DEEPLY ENTRENCHED

The issue of a fixed election date, which I sought to have introduced in 2008, proved to be more difficult. Section 64 (1), which provides for the governor general to dissolve Parliament at any time to facilitate the holding of an election, is not entrenched and, by itself, could easily be amended.

However, a fixed election date would also require amendment to other parts of Section 64, as well as Section 65 that provide for the life of Parliament to be extended in certain circumstances, the power of the prime minister to secure the dissolution of Parliament in the event of a no-confidence vote, and the requirement for the governor general to act on the advice of the prime minister in declaring the date for elections.

These provisions are not merely entrenched, but deeply entrenched, which means that amendments would require not just bipartisan approval in Parliament, but approval as well by a referendum.

Removing the King of England as our head of state is just one referendum issue. There are several other changes being mooted that would also require a referendum.

How that referendum ballot would be designed, whether persons would have to vote for or against an entire package of changes or would be free to choose from a list of items, with the danger of ending up with choices that are in conflict with each other, is an important procedural issue that has not yet been a part of the public debate.

BRUCE GOLDING

Former Prime Minister