Editorial | Make fixed-date election part of the campaign

It is accepted in the Westminster political system, and the variations thereof, that political parties and their leaders, when it is in their power to so determine, time elections to periods they believe to be to their advantage. It is in that context, our belief that people should, insofar as possible, be afforded political representation, that this newspaper felt the People’s National Party (PNP) was wrong in boycotting the by-election earlier this month for the South East Clarendon constituency.

But there is sometimes a thin line between taking advantage of an opportunity and cynical behaviour that crosses the line to abuse of democracy. Which is what this newspaper fears is possible with the widely reported imminent resignation of the Speaker of the House, and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) member for North Central Clarendon, Pearnel Charles Sr. His departure will likely precipitate another by-election, which the PNP says it will boycott. That would ensure a shoo-in for expected JLP candidate, Robert Morgan, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Andrew Holness, and a long-trusted aide to the PM.

Holding an election, and allowing the residents of North Central Clarendon to have representation in Parliament is not, of itself, a bad thing, even though a general election is constitutionally due in a year’s time, and is likely to be held well ahead of it due date. What deepens our concern is the obvious contrivance in the timing of the resignations of Ruddy Spencer, the MP for South East Clarendon, and Mr Charles’. The unrebutted claim is that they were designed to settle disputes within the JLP, at a significant cost to taxpayers. It is also an opportunity for the governing party to hone its general election strategy.

CONSTITUTIONAL HURDLES

It is widely known that Speaker Charles’ son, Pearnel Charles Jr, and Mr Morgan were in a contentious competition for the senior Charles’ seat when he retired. The senior Mr Charles, 83, one of the JLP’s old stalwarts, was apparently unwilling to step down until he was certain that his son was ensconced in a constituency, and preferably in Parliament. Hence, Mr Spencer was prevailed upon to step down. Mr Morgan will now have a free run as his party’s standard-bearer in North Central Clarendon, where, given the precedent set in South East, Mr Holness will feel bound to hold the vote.

This issue, however, raises again whether in the Westminster arrangement, political leaders should have unfettered authority in the timing of elections, and if Jamaica, like some jurisdictions, including Great Britain, shouldn’t move to a fixed election date. This newspaper has great sympathy for the latter position. A change, though, as former Prime Minister Bruce Golding noted recently, would require clearing significant constitutional hurdles.

Under Section 64(1) of the Constitution, the governor general may “at any time” dissolve or prorogue Parliament. Changing this to allow for a fixed date for elections would be, on the face of it, a relatively simple matter. It isn’t entrenched.

That, however, is until, as Mr Golding highlighted, you reach Section 64(5), which requires that “in the exercise of his powers under this section, the governor general shall act in accordance with the advice of the prime minister”. Ultimately, therefore, it is the prime minister who decides on election dates. This section also makes a general election mandatory in the event of a no-confidence vote in a government, rather than giving legislators a period of time to determine whether they can fashion a new administration.

The problem with Section 64(5) is one of those clauses and sections that is deeply entrenched by Section 49(3)(b) of the Constitution, which requires that an amendment bill must lay on the table of the House for three months before its debate, and another three after the debate before it is voted on. Further, if the bill is passed, it has to be submitted to a referendum for approval by the majority of the people who vote.

Additionally, voting-date reform would also require an amendment to Section 71(3) of the Constitution to remove the authority of a prime minister, against whom a no-confidence vote is passed, to ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament, so long as he does so within three days of the vote.

These matters, as well as a cut-off period for a by-election when a parliamentary seat becomes vacant within a year of the end of the life of Parliament, should be central to the campaign for the next general election.