Peter Espeut | Ethics demands a fixed election date

It should be clear to all that the constitutional provision giving the sitting prime minister (PM) the power to set the election date, provides the ruling party with a decided advantage over the opposition parties.

The PM can watch the polls, and keep his ears to the ground, and as soon as he senses that public opinion is with his party, he can call a snap election to obtain a new mandate, hoping to get an increased majority (preferably a two-thirds majority so he can ram through constitutional changes which only need a simple majority in both houses). At the very least, even if he has only a one-seat majority he can reset the five-year clock, and have more years of snout-in-the-trough.

On the other hand, if the polls are not favourable, he can delay calling the elections until the last possible moment. Should that happen, it may open doors for swinging results in their favour. Contracts signed during this period will tie the new government’s hands. Persons appointed to important contract driven posts will be expensive to move. Should the outgoing government sell off Jamaica’s future income (even as much as 12-years-worth into the future) for cash payable now – this will provide less resources for the incoming government.

No! The power of the PM to set the election date creates a very uneven and pitted playing field, which is morally unjustifiable.

But what might we replace it with?

Even Westminster – from whom we copied that provision, abandoned it in 2011, passing the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (FTPA), adopting a fixed date for general elections (the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election). What it really did was remove the Royal prerogative to dissolve parliament and call elections (on the advice of the PM).

However, the British FTPA also provided two ways to call an election early. One was a Commons vote of no confidence in the government, which required only a simple majority of voters. The other was a vote explicitly in favour of an earlier election, which required a two-thirds majority of the total membership of the Commons. In my view, these were half-hearted provisions, making exceptions too easy.

DIE HARD

Old ways die hard! The first UK general election under the FTPA was held on 7 May 2015. An early election was held in 2017, after PM Theresa May received approval to call it by a two-thirds majority. The next election was again called early (in 2019). Every election was an exception. They really didn’t want to divest the PM of that power. The UK parliament repealed the FTPA in 2022, restoring the Royal prerogative to dissolve parliament and call elections.

The Republic of the United States of America (RUSA) has no monarchy to dissolve Parliament/Congress. The RUSA has a fixed presidential election date every four years; I can tell you the next ten, twenty, thirty election dates in the RUSA far into the future – to the year 2143 AD and beyond. If the president of the RUSA dies or is impeached, resigns or is incapacitated, there is no new election; the Vice-President (VP) takes over seamlessly. And if the VP dies etc., the Speaker of the House automatically becomes President. In civics class, every child in the US learns the order of succession down to the eighteenth eligible person (none except the VP, Speaker and Senate President are elected by the people).

I am not so sure there are many politicians in Jamaica who really want to do away with a monarch-style ruler; we plan to replace the English monarch with a Jamaican one, and call that person the Prime Minister. If we really want to be a genuine republic we must abolish the Royal prerogative to dissolve parliament/call elections on the advice of the PM; Jamaica’s reformed constitution must define a fixed election date. If the government falls, the ruling party must choose a new PM who will form a new government (with separation of powers, cabinet ministers are not selected from among MPs but are chosen for their competence in the particular portfolio).

WAIT

But in the meantime, we here in Jamaica in 2025 wait for PM Holness to feel confident enough of victory to call the general election. What if the newly staffed anti-corruption agencies were to certify annual declarations without explanation; and to terminate all the investigations into illicit enrichment without explanation (the gag order is still in place)?

The People’s National Party (PNP) has given no indication that if elected they will strengthen the anti-corruption framework of the nation by making asset declarations public, and allowing the Integrity Commission to notify us when any of those who serve us are under investigation for corruption, including illicit enrichment (the PNP approved of the secrecy and the gag clause in the first place).

The PNP give us no reason to vote FOR them. We are left with the option of voting AGAINST the power-grabbing self-serving incumbents. Maybe only to elect different power-grabbing self-serving rulers.

And we are unlikely to become a genuine republic by getting rid of local monarchs anytime soon.

Poor us!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com