As published in the TRINIDAD EXPRESS of 29 May, 2009

These comments are prompted by Selwyn Ryan’s Editorial in the Sunday Express of 17 May entitled:”Westminster revisited”. He quotes upfront prominent British sources indicating “that our political system could not possibly be as dysfunctional as we claimed” and that those other systems “are equally awful”.  In short, it is argued that Trinidad & Tobago is not the only country whose political and constitutional system is in crisis. Thus, misery likes company!

These days, much is being said and written about the Westminster model in light of recent events in the British Parliament, i.e. misconduct of British Parliamentarians and the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Granted, there is an outcry against the corrupt behavior of certain Members of Parliament in Britain. However, if there is crisis, it is not really systemic, but it is due much more to human failure, moral and ethical, caused precisely by those who have the duty to act as guardians of the British parliamentary system. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the system of Westminster Government is falling down. After all, it existed for more than 300 years, and it is likely to function for many more to come. It is resilient, it has proven well suited for Britain, and it has been developed from within, through customs and conventions over centuries.

In Trinidad & Tobago, the reality is different. At independence, the Westminster Model was faithfully adopted as part of our colonial inheritance.  But soon thereafter and increasingly so, the question was raised as to the suitability of Westminster in the context of our developing Twin-Island State, small in size and numbers, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, unitary by its very constitution. Hence the several attempts at constitutional reform, and hence the several crisis situations which the present constitution had to endure. Memories go back to the 1990 Coup,

the house arrest of the speaker, the 18 / 18 situation, or the now emerging fiasco with regard to the Integrity Commission. And this is not to mention an electoral system, copied from Westminster, based strictly on majority rule (winner takes all) that often turns into a “tyranny of the majority.”

My contention is that the Westminster Model, while suitable for Britain, is not meeting the needs and requirements of a developing society like ours, and that it has built-in shortcomings which are systemic, a part from occasional human failures.  Errare humanum est! Systemic shortcomings coupled with moral and ethical deficits of the people in charge make the Westminster Model at times turn into a “Westmonster Application” in Trinidad & Tobago.

Where is the application of the fundamental, democratic principle of “separation of power” in a small Parliament like ours, when the ruling party occupies 26 seats in Parliament, but out of which 23 elected members of the legislative hold at the same time ministerial (executive) portfolios? Clearly, the lines between Executive and Legislative are blurred at best. What about upholding the principles of non-partisanship and impartiality of Presiding Officers in a small Parliament like ours, when these Officers have held recently ministerial rank and/or remain senior members of the ruling party?

Now, a new draft constitution is out for discussion and consultations. One could have expected that the draft would constitute a departure from the Westminster Model and bring about a serious search for ways and means to strengthen democratic processes in our Republic. Instead, the parliamentary system as we know it, is maintained with a few deviations, the most significant being the proposed introduction of the Office of an Executive President, appointed by a majority in Parliament, not elected by the people, and without the necessary checks and balances.   Even more “monstrous” a model?  

There must be a deliberate effort to strengthen democratic processes in any new constitution, even if it means to go outside the Westminster Box. Lessons must be learned from other constitutional arrangements and democratic devices. For one, proportional representation would fit Trinidad & Tobago much better than a strict majority based “winner take all” electoral system. One does not have to go very far to realize how well proportional representation works in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and highly divers country. Reference is made to Suriname which, in its make up, is very similar to Trinidad & Tobago. I have yet to hear any convincing argument against proportional representation in Trinidad & Tobago, except the simplistic statement by some in authority: “It can’t work here!”

Finally, I cannot help but make reference to a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and highly divers and relatively small Country in Europe, i.e. Switzerland. I bring up the Swiss system of Government, known as the model of “direct democracy” ever since its foundation in 1291, because certain relevant lessons can be drawn. Not only do the Swiss practice a system of proportional representation which gives minority parties invariably a place and voice in Parliament. But the Executive, comprised of 7 Ministers represents a coalition Government based on collective decision-making, and a presidency rotating among the seven from year to year. In addition, the Swiss Constitution gives any 50’000 eligible voters the right to seize a referendum and to oppose or reject proposed laws by the Government. Similarly, any 100’000 Swiss eligible voters can put forward what is called a “popular initiative”, and propose constitutional amendments which then have to be submitted to a popular vote.

A last special word on Swiss Federalism: The main reason why Switzerland has hold together over centuries is because of its federal system which devolves to its constituent elements, the 24 Cantons, a large measure of autonomy, authority and identity. The proposed Draft Constitution in Trinidad & Tobago has to deal inescapably with the relationship between Trinidad and its “junior partner” Tobago. Learning from the Swiss experience, wouldn’t it be advisable to move away from the concept of strict unitary statehood towards some form of federal construct which would take into account the special needs and requirements of Tobago?

Hans Geiser, Port-of-Spain