LETTER OF THE DAY: Fixed election dates a bad idea

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The idea of fixed dates for elections in Jamaica has been proposed. One wonders if the proponents of this idea have thought through its implications within the Westminster parliamentary democracy system. The rules of an electoral system are important during routine times, but become crucial when extraordinary events occur. Unusual events can take a society to the edge of a precipice. The appropriateness of the electoral rules can determine whether the society descends into social chaos or not.

The United States of America has a fixed-date election cycle which is compatible with its system of government. That country has separate elections for the executive branch of government and for the legislative branch, i.e., the president is elected separately from Congress. Such a system is able to accommodate the executive and the legislature being controlled by different parties. Furthermore, if the president has to be removed from office for misconduct or any other reason, there is a clear and unambiguous succession path which does not require a new election.

In Jamaica, there are no elections for the executive branch of government. Rather, our system vests executive control in the hands of the person elected to the legislature who enjoys majority support from other elected legislators. Our system dictates that the prime minister should be a legislator and enjoy majority support within the House of Representatives.

It could be argued that while this is the formal arrangement, the real arrangement is that people select their members of parliament with an eye on who (or, at the very least, which party) they wish to control the executive branch. People, therefore, vote indirectly for the prime minister by proxy votes.

Having looked at the formal, as well as the real, arrangements for selecting the executive, we must now ask ourselves what would occur in exceptional circumstances. Suppose the person occupying the post of prime minister is forced to demit office for misconduct or for some other reason, what would be the succession path? This, however, might be more straightforward than the situation where members of parliament of the ruling party cross the floor to join the Opposition.

A change in the executive

It is possible that one member of parliament (in the event of an odd number of members in the House) or two members of parliament (in the event of an even number) crossing the floor can make the opposition party the majority party. Would the leader of the Opposition automatically become the prime minister? With fixed election dates, this would have to be the solution - a change in the entire executive - because a single member (or two members) of the legislature has decided to change sides. If it is true that the electorate voted indirectly for the prime minister through voting for the MPs, the electorate should be given an opportunity to endorse or reject the move of that MP who changed sides. A fixed election date cycle could thrust upon the population a government which does not have majority electoral support.

Allowing the prime minister to have the authority to call an election at any time protects the population against the actions of a few MPs who might decide that the government should pass from the control of one party to another. In the event that a prime minister finds himself in a minority position in Parliament, he can ask the electorate for a fresh mandate. It would be the people, in their wisdom, who would eject him and his entire team from office, or retain them, not the action of a few MPs.

If we are desirous of fixed-date elections, we might need to change the entire electoral arrangements. Sometimes pouring new wine into old wineskin could cause both the wine and the wineskin to be lost.

I am, etc.,

PETER-JOHN GORDON

Department of Economics

University of the West Indies