Although it is necessary for T&T to develop a constitutional model that is guided by the political and cultural history, and the needs of the polity and society in the 21st century, it does not mean that we should start from zero to invent all elements of an election and governance structure.
In this context, borrowing from the United States-style presidential model and adapting it to our needs seems an option to explore.
As asserted in last week's column, the present system of electing MPs who are subsequently cast in the role of ministers–a role for which they were not elected, not tested and for which they did not display any capacities, expertise or dispositions–has not worked for the effective governance of the country. That assertion has been borne out by the election results of the last 30 years.
Having rewarded the nationalist People's National Movement with a long and largely unmonitored stretch in office for guiding the country out of colonial rule, the electorate in 1986 felt sufficiently secure to change the government without the fear of catastrophic consequences. However, since the experiment with the coalition National Alliance for Reconstruction fell disastrously apart, the electorate, in almost every general election thereafter, has declared itself dissatisfied with the quality of governance received.
Corruption, incompetence, mismanagement, arrogance, failure to properly communicate with and consult the population, have been among the major reasons for the frequent changes of parties in government. Governments have been voted out of office rather than new governments being elected on the basis of capacity.
As indicated last week, the above is a natural result of the election of parties/governments on the basis of unthinking and fanatical party affiliation; on racial voting patterns and allegations of the other party being corrupt. Little is demonstrated and tested on the technical capacity of the elected party and its candidates to develop and operationalise policies and programmes in the best interest of the nation.
The attraction of this columnist to some variation of an elected executive presidential model is to have the person elected appoint people with known training expertise and experience to manage and direct the course of a ministry of health, of finance, construction infrastructure; an appointed person to a ministry of public administration would have some degree of expertise and experience in public administration management and so could seek to transform the service.
Secondly, a Cabinet appointed by an executive president must be free of party loyalty, of the ethnic load which all Cabinets have carried since Independence. Policies adopted and decisions taken must be in the national interest and not to fulfil a party agenda that is packed with self and party interests.
The challenge is to find a means of electing a president through a system that tests a programme for transformation and governance. The presidential campaign should also test the ability of the contenders for presidential office to select a cabinet of skilled and experienced professionals who are not officials of any party or not beholden to the President. The President-elect will also have to possess experience and skills in monitoring the functioning of the Cabinet, of ministers to determine if they are fulfilling their responsibilities.
Ministers will be hired, retained and fired on the basis of their work, their disposition in office, their capacity to work in the interest of the nation. But before being hired, those people selected by the President must be given a thorough testing for suitability. Those who do not make it through the rain will be dropped and replaced.
In addition to making as good a selection as possible, taking ministerial candidates through a rigorous testing process will send the message that ministers and the Cabinet will be subject to serious and ongoing scrutiny.
A Parliament comprising elected representatives of the people will function in the role for which it is elected; that being the MPs having to seek the best interests of their constituents. An upper house of senators in the Lloyd Best "maco" senate model will be placed there by the various and contending interests groups in the society and would include what can be referred to as a "People's Sector"–the non-government organisations and pressure groups.
Sitting individually, the Houses of Parliament will scrutinise legislation brought by the President and his/her Cabinet, close-monitor the operations of the Cabinet and government, and could even have the power to bring non-executive type bills for debate and passage.
None of the methods proposed here to find and form a Cabinet and government of competence minus our ethnic overload I consider to be sacred. One reader of the first column accurately understood that the column/s is/are to provoke action on constitutional reform.
Succeeding governing and opposition parties have made pre-election noises and promises about constitution reform but done nothing when elected. The People's Partnership/UNC government waited for the end of its term and then attempted to sneak back into office through a run-off system that favoured it but never consulted the population on.
We cannot allow the Government to dictate and schedule discussions and debate on reforming the Constitution for the end of this five-year term and promise to implement it in the following term. Neither of the major parties will want any major change to a system that allows each to play the race and party card.