The government is in power because of the help of third fourth and fifth parties, in fact, each time the UNC got into power it was with the assistance of a third party, so why would they seek to implement a measure to exterminate these parties? On the other hand, the PNM benefits whenever a third party splits the votes and, in fact they can be formed and financed to do just that.
If we look further than the next general election, we may see a so-called third party relegating one of the major parties into that same category, if they were to have the correct social conversation with the population along with staying-power.
This runoff bill may seem like a dagger in the heart of some but it also commands political parties to win a seat on merit. These are exciting political times and those opposed should show why because both the PNM and the UNC need the third party, albeit for reasons contrary.
The argument that it is not democratic that a party which did not win can remain in office during the 15-day period of the runoff is feeble as in 18-18 the then appointee remained in office for an entire year without accounting to a parliament, cementing themselves with taxpayers' money as it suited them before calling the election, the results of which were a forgone conclusion. If that was not a great subversion of our democracy yet seen then those opposed should tell me.
A proposal should be made in the constitution to deal with any deadlock, 20-20-1 perhaps, in the future where no one budges, as this can happen some day to come.It is debatable whether the restricted two-term limit for a prime minister is a good thing as it takes away from the franchise of the voter. It is also debatable whether the recall may be harsh or unfair because even a minister does not have full control in his ministry far less an ordinary MP who has to beseech others to help him service his constituents.
Ramesh Marajh,
Palo Seco