The decision by President Donald Ramotar to prorogue the Parliament of Guyana highlights the difference between an executive presidency (Guyana) and the quasi-ceremonial presidency that we have in T&T.According to section 111(1) of the Guyana Constitution, the powers of the presidency are to be exercised as follows:"In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other law, the President shall act in accordance with his own deliberate judgment except in cases where, by this Constitution or by any other law, he is required to act in accordance with the advice or on the recommendation of any person or authority."
It is very obvious that the primary method of exercising presidential power in Guyana is that "the President shall act in his own deliberate judgment except in cases where...."In T&T, the powers of the President are specified in section 80(1) as follows:"In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other law, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except in cases where other provision is made by this Constitution or such other law, and, without prejudice to the generality of this exception, in cases where by this Constitution or such other law he is required to act–
(a) in his discretion
(b) after consultation with any person or authority other than the Cabinet, or
(c) in accordance with the advice of any person or authority other than the Cabinet."
Here it is very obvious that the primary method of exercising presidential power in this country is based on the principle that "the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, except in cases where..."
This is an important distinction to understand, because in recent times there have been views expressed that imply that our President can take it upon himself to refuse assent to legislation or to unilaterally decide to appoint a commission of enquiry.The contrast between Guyana and this country demonstrates exactly how an executive president is empowered to act "in his own deliberate judgment," while our President is empowered to act "in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet."
President Ramotar did not have to advise anyone to prorogue Parliament, as section 70(1) of the Guyana Constitution states:"The President may at any time prorogue Parliament."Last Monday, the President certainly exercised his executive powers to prorogue Parliament. In hybrid presidential-parliamentary systems like Guyana, the decision to retain parliamentary techniques, while simultaneously adopting executive presidential ones, can cause difficulties such as the prorogation decision. The basis of an executive presidency is one in which there is always the possibility that the presidency can be controlled by one party and the legislature can be controlled by another.
Divided government has come once again to Washington in the aftermath of the mid-term congressional elections. However, the existence of the mutual dismissability rule of parliamentary systems in Guyana's Constitution is not to be found in the United States, where there is a genuine separation of powers.The premise of the Guyanese constitutional amendments that ushered in these reforms that kept parliamentary techniques of dissolution and prorogation, while keeping an executive presidency based on the manner in which presidential power is to be exercised in the Guyanese Constitution, has created a situation of imbalance. If the principles of mutual dismissability (prorogation and dissolution in the hands of the executive and no-confidence motions in the hands of the Parliament) had been removed, Guyana would not be facing its current political problems.There would have to be genuine dialogue to seek a compromise on all legislation as neither side could dismiss the other.
The National Assembly exercised a constitutional power that it properly has to move a motion of no confidence in the President and the administration, while the President exercised a constitutional power to prorogue Parliament to avoid facing the consequences of a possible successful motion of no confidence.The underlying issue here is the shortening of the term of office of the President. Having been sworn into office in December 2011, President Ramotar was entitled to serve until December 2016. He has managed to buy himself six more months, but an election in 2015 rather than 2016 looks more likely.
Last Monday, there was a "sitting" of the National Assembly notwithstanding the fact that it had been prorogued. The contributions from Carl Greenidge, Moses Nagamootoo and Khemraj Ramjattan scuttled the prospect of any discussions between President Ramotar and the APNU/AFC Alliance that controls the Parliament.The source of the problem in Guyana is that it made reforms to its 1980 executive presidential constitution, some of which were beneficial (term limits for the presidency), and others which have created the current instability (the retention of mutual dismissability with an advantage to the President).T&T's presidency is different, as it is firmly rooted in a quasi-ceremonial parliamentary methodology whereby the President acts largely on the advice
of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.