Letter of the Day | Constitutional reform for national interest

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Amid rumblings of an impending Cabinet shuffle, the public is left to wonder how this will affect the issue of constitutional reform, which has been on the national agenda through successive governments for far too long, without resolution.

Credit must be given to PM Holness, as he has acted by establishing in January 2022 a Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs (MLCA) and his recognition that constitutional change cannot “be empty symbolism” of just becoming a republic, but should incorporate fundamental change not only in form, but in substance.

The inclusion of former Solicitor General Michael Hylton and former Attorney General A.J. Nicholson would add much value to the deliberations of that committee.

The formation of the MLCA, in and of itself, brings to mind issues of good governance as part of the necessary constitutional change. Changes that, if made, could be “more than symbolic”. The issues that immediately arise to mind include, but are not limited to, the size of the Cabinet, core/essential ministries, continuity and consensus in policy, and the right of people to challenge.

One consideration must be if the administration changes, will a new administration retain the MLCA? If it retains the MLCA, will the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) be retained in its current form, and what will become of its work to date?

In the current constitutional framework, it is quite possible that a new administration may opt not a have a MLCA. Therefore, good governance should have dictated that there be consensus between the political parties to continue the work of the ministry vis-à-vis the CRC. If there is no consensus the mandate of the MLCA and CRC may well end, rendering the work they have been doing an exercise in futility.

CONTINUITY IMPERATIVE TO PROCESS

Continuity is imperative to achieve national development. It appears that the Opposition has slightly changed its position and now wants to tie the transition to republican status to acceding to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). The Government, however, wants to press on with republican status, whilst it has not yet set out in clear terms its position on the CCJ. One can easily see that the MLCA has the makings of a merry-go-round; hence, consensus on these clear and what should be non-political issues should be sought, so that there is continuity on issues of constitutional reform and other core issues of governance. It is not too late for this consensus to be had; this term is not over yet.

Currently, Section 69 of the Constitution mandates that the PM must appoint “such number of other Ministers (not being less than eleven) as the PM may from time to time consider appropriate”. A PM is therefore at liberty to appoint as large a Cabinet as he desires. This encourages ‘curry goat’ politics, a cavalier approach to the costs and size of government and effectively removes more members of parliament from focusing on and serving the interests of their constituents.

This reality exists in nearly every administration. Jamaica has had Cabinets that have been unnecessarily large, with many appointments clearly being political rewards. Cabinet posts are ‘created’ in order to reward persons. What other reason is there to have ministers without portfolio in the Office of the Prime Minister. This is not unique to this administration. The current shadow Cabinet of the Opposition is comprised of 26 members! More Cabinet posts and/or more ministries require more resources to effectively operate these ministries and pay these ministers and their staff. Many ministries and ministers without portfolio should be consolidated with other ministries as part of a smaller and more efficient Cabinet.

SHUFFLING THE CABINET

Separate and apart from when a new administration comes into being, the Cabinet can also be ‘shuffled’ mid-term, as is being contemplated at this time. Many may not appreciate that Cabinet shuffles and creation of new ministries are a cost to taxpayers. It would serve good governance practices if our Constitution were to limit the size of the Cabinet and have, perhaps, some delineated core ministries, such as Finance, Foreign Affairs, Health and Education, just as examples. On these, say, five core ministries, a PM could then select more ministries within a constitutionally mandated maximum allowable.

The time has long past for the political parties to come together and agree on certain cores issues for national development, thereby ensuring continuity regardless of which political party forms the administration.

The days of a great divide in ideologies are long gone. That project ended in 1980. Notwithstanding, there has never been national consensus in the setting of objectives, targets, systems and procedures to which every successive administration will continue in the interest of national development.

The issue of constitutional reform, while apparently primarily focused on the issue of Jamaica becoming a republic and the issue of our final Court of Appeal, should have broader objectives, to include good governance. It should recognise that true repatriation of the Constitution can only be a repatriation of the Constitution to the people and not the government. Any reform must recognise that governmental power emanates from that which the people constitutionally mandate.

It would be ideal if the Constitution puts in place systems and procedures which guides, and even forces, our political leaders to make decisions in the national interest and not for political gain.

JALIL DABDOUB