No. 21 – politics wins round one

And if the People’s National Party (PNP) were to see its numbers increase after all the magisterial recounts and reach 50, then we go to 25. If you are silly enough to believe that, I have a piece of Sandy Gully Bridge to sell you.

Let’s just be honest. It might not be such a big deal that the Cabinet of Queen Portia is 20, and even compensating for the rotund and ‘gymophobes’ appointed within, it is not necessarily overweight. Indeed, gazillionaire Butch Stewart opines that it is not too large, and despite the numbers quoted in The Gleaner last week, it is only two salaries more. Given all the money lost in the JDIP scandal, it couldn’t even fix a lane.

It could be worse. Trinidad and Tobago has half our population, hovering around 1.3 million, although the number of its goods on our shelves would give a different impression. Its House of Representatives has 41 parliamentary seats. Thus, in proportional terms, like our trade imbalance with them, our Parliament could easily comprise 82 members. Nevertheless, it has a Cabinet of 27, which is six more than that of Portia Simpson Miller’s and almost double her 2006 skeleton team of 14.

However, if the twin-island republic is anything to go by, it is clear that function and ability are not necessarily the bases for the determination of ministries and ministers. For example, I am at great pains to see the true separation of functions of a Ministry of Justice and another of Legal Affairs. Thankfully, we are not so barefaced here.

Nonetheless, it might be instructive to look at Cabinet sizes in other democracies and see if there is any internal logic, or whether or not there is any correlation between their dimensions and population or parliamentary size.

Let’s take India first.

With a population of more than a billion, and with some names so long that the ballot papers would perhaps be folder-leaf length if printed in full, India has a Parliament with 545 members. Correspondingly, it has 34 full ministers of government, seven ministers of state, described as independent charge, and another 37 state ministers. That is a grand total of 78 ministers to administer the affairs of around a sixth of the world’s population. Using the proportional argument being pushed to justify the additional ministers appointed by Portia, it would seem that India’s Parliament is lean, and with little place for those who might have curried favour to get in.

Our underpopulated Commonwealth neighbour to the north, Canada, has a mere 35 million inhabitants, give or take a few thousand Jamaicans flying below the immigration radar. To service these residents, there are 308 members of parliament. At present, the Canadian Cabinet is a not particularly large – 39.

Then turn our gaze west and the country which threatens to withhold funding if we don’t change our laws has a humongous mansion of parliament with space for 650 members in the British House of Commons. This hard-working Parliament, which meets around thrice as often as the Jamaican legislature, must be actively representing its constituents in lawmaking and policymaking, because the United Kingdom’s population is 62 million. Yet the Cabinet of current Prime Minister David Cameron is 29, exclusive of the attorney general. Do the math, because I used to get detention for being ‘arithmesick’. But try as you may, this makes ours look massive if we use ratios.

Finally, we look to the land of Uncle Sam, whose president Barack Obama’s name means the ‘Eagle sent by God’. By the way, Portia means ‘gift’. The most important country in the world and the centre of the world economy, the great ‘Farrin’, prides itself on transparency, equality, and democracy.

More than 300 million Americans inhabit that country, and studies have suggested that as many Jamaicans live there as here on the rock. Its system of government is different from ours, although it does have two houses like ours – a House of Representatives and a Senate. However, members of both the Senate and ‘Congress’ have to be directly elected by the electorate. Each state has two senators, thus creating 100 seats. On the other hand, the Representatives has 435. The congressmen and women are the ones who equate to our parliamentarians. But when you add the total number of elected officials, it’s 535.

So then, given America’s size and its economic strength and the ability to pay for a large Cabinet, isn’t it reasonable to think that it should be in the size range of Canada? Not! Although it is not ostensibly chosen from Congress, the US Cabinet has the gigantic number of 15 members, and another seven Cabinet-level officers, headed by the vice-president.

The lesson to be learnt from America is clear and simple. Parliamentary seats are for representative purposes first and foremost. A Cabinet portfolio is for the benefit of society and should ideally have little to do with party loyalty. For this reason, all of the American Cabinet positions have to pass bipartisan tests and scrutiny, and in the end, the official is a blend of competence in the area and moral rectitude.

Being in Parliament is reward in itself and ought not to be seen as the platform for other kinds of benefits. Although its diet should be more than water and bulla, a Cabinet should be as skinny as a long-distance runner, especially when a government is telling its public servants to eliminate waste. Given the impending bitter castor oil and mojo herb which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is going to make the Government give us, even a one-person addition to a Cabinet sends the wrong signal.

Therefore, I totally agreed with Portia in 2006 when she appointed a 14-person Cabinet. Consequently, she was rightfully indignant when Bruce Golding pumped it up to 19 in 2007. Nineteen cannot be too large in 2007, and 20 be suitable in 2012. I might have performed dismally in math, but thanks to Michael Manley’s free education in the 1970s, I know the difference.

Honestly, I would not want to be in Portia’s position now, because while she has to be focused on development and national priorities, she has to mix her internal politics with her narrow priorities. After all, with a majority which only the most dishonest or pathologically optimistic could say that they predicted, the PNP has to find jobs for many of the unexpected victors.

‘Poor-sha’ has to not appear ungrateful, as some Westmoreland voters think she ‘Blythed’ their former MP in 2006. She has to keep Roger Clarke, for all of the space that he takes up, and Peter Phillips, a former adversary, is indispensable. Then, she has to appoint the next tier of ’40s and ’50s such as Phillip Paulwell and General Secretary Peter Bunting. And don’t forget the women.

Then the attorney general, though not a true number, makes 21. Alas, this is a rude awakening and a hard lesson to learn. It is easy to criticise, but managing is much harder.

The argument of succession planning is reasonable, but not completely persuasive. The fact is, when you are doing corporate planning, you have to limit your number of management trainees to the vacancies you have. That is called management, and not politics.

Twenty one is the magic number, but is it the most efficient size? Truthfully, we would have been focusing on governance now, if she hadn’t replied to Bruce’s original criticism and berated his 19, and cock mouth would not have ... you know the rest.

■ Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in sociology at the UWI and a radio talk-show host. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.