As the world watches President-elect Obama select his Cabinet, some of the real differences between Jamaica's Westminster-style constitution and the United States (US) Constitution are highlighted.

The US Constitution allows Obama to look around the whole USA and choose the best person, in his view, to head his economic team, the best person to head his national security team, the best person to head his education team, and so on. He can choose politicians, someone from the Congress or the Senate, or one of the State Governors; he can choose a private-sector person, someone from industry or banking who knows finance and business intimately; he can choose someone from the military with first-hand experience in dealing with security conflicts, or he can choose someone from academia who is a noted expert in a particular field. Since the nation deserves the best governance, the US Constitution allows the president to put at the head of his Labour Department or his Education Department or his Defence Department persons with a proven track record in the field in question.

In our Westminster-based system, the prime minister is restricted to choosing his Cabinet from the persons elected as Members of Parliament (MP). Even if none of his MPs has great financial expertise, he still has to choose one as minister of finance; even if none of his MPs has expertise in national security matters, he still has to choose one as minister of national security; even if none of the MPs knows anything about health care, one still has to be named minister of health.

Shortcoming

This is a big shortcoming in our system. Over the years it has led to a farmer being named minister of national security, medical doctors being named as minister of education and minister of foreign affairs, a merchant being appointed minister of agriculture, a cosmetologist being appointed minister of housing, and a commissioned land surveyor being appointed minister of health. Surely, in these days when efficiency in government is para-mount, we need a poli-tical system where the prime minister is in a position to appoint the best people to run the various portfolios in the country.

Constituency

Additionally, in this system each one of these Cabinet ministers has a constituency to represent in addition to managing his portfolio. If he spends too much time managing his ministry, chances are he will neglect his constituency and will lose his seat at the next general election. If he spends too much time in his constituency, he will only be in his ministerial office one or two days each week, and his portfolio might lose focus. Why must a Cabinet minister have to juggle between his constituency and his portfolio?

Some years ago the deficiency was recognized, and our Constitution was amended to allow the prime minister to place members of the Upper House in his Cabinet. Section 69 (3) reads: "Not less than two nor more than four of the ministers selected pursuant to subsection (1) Shall be persons who are members of the Senate". This means that the prime minister can appoint portfolio experts to the Senate, and then appoint them to the Cabinet, which approximates the US system, but he can only do this for maximum four ministries. If the advantages of appointing non-MPs to the Cabinet are recognised, why limit it to only four? Why can't every ministry of government be headed by an expert in that field? And why must they sit in the Senate? Leave the MPs to represent the persons who elected them without distraction, and appoint specialists to head the ministries, to do the best job possible for the whole country.

Soon we are going to witness US confirmation hearings, where the people's elected representatives cross-question the candidates for cabinet office as to their qualifications and experience, and about potential conflicts of interest. Our Westminster system lacks this safeguard; Jamaican elected politicians and senators get appointed to high-cabinet posts without being required to answer searching questions about themselves, and some even refuse to give interviews to the media at all!

Confirmation hearings

I believe the affairs of Jamaica would be better managed if our Constitution allowed the prime minister to nominate the best available persons to his Cabinet, and for those nominees to be required to face confirmation hearings. Bruce Golding, when in the National Democratic Movement and in Opposition, promised constitutional reform, and specifically, confirmation hearings. Can we have meaningful change in Jamaica? Can we, yes?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.