Denis Homepage
Trinidad Newspapers
Balled to order
February 03, 2002
By Denis Solomon
THE FRENCH have a saying: "If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle". This saying encapsulates the futility of the reasoning of those who cling to the view that the President of Trinidad and Tobago had the power to name a Prime Minister with no prospect of a majority in Parliament. Since Section 76 (b) of the Constitution empowers the President to appoint the person who in his judgment is likely to command a majority, and since he has appointed Mr Manning, ergo he must have judged Mr Manning to be capable of commanding a majority. Never mind that the President had in his hands documents signed by all MPs affirming this to be untrue; never mind that the President did not give that as a reason for the appointment; never mind that if it had been true the President would have summoned Parliament. Never mind all that: the country must be reassured that its government is "legal".
A slightly more refined version of the argument is that the Constitution says the country shall have a Prime Minister, and gives the President the authority to make the appointment; ergo, once he makes it, the country has a Prime Minister. This argument was advanced by attorney Douglas Mendes at the Constitution Review Forum meeting last Tuesday evening.
A more disingenuous argument is the one that the Attorney General, Glenda Morean, attempted to put forward at the forum. Section 80 of the Constitution says that in making the appointment the President shall act in his own deliberate judgment. Ms Morean, however, conveniently omitted the phrase in Section 80 that says that the appointment in question is an appointment under Section 76. Corrected by a panel member who had read the Constitution, she desisted.
Ms Morean was rightly commended for having attended the forum in the first place. But she should have behaved more like a concerned citizen, and eschewed the politician's reliance on the ignorance of her listeners.
What I have really been trying to challenge is not a label, but the mentality that demands the reassurance of terminology, preferably legal terminology, to assuage a sense of helplessness in the face of a political crisis (at the forum there was even an argument about whether or not the situation was a "crisis"!).
My point is that the proof of every pudding is in the eating. Whether the government is "legal" or "illegal", the crisis remains. My aunt does not have balls. She lacks them by definition. I cannot wish them on to her, or confer them on her terminologically.
The concept that underlies all the discussions is that once we have an unquestioned government everything will be all right. This idea is all the more insidious for being already rooted in the mentality of the population. But that mentality is the whole cause of the problem. The 18-18 deadlock is simply what mathematicians call the limiting case; the inevitable operational consequence of the system.
This idea has of late been put about most assiduously by the PNM, who have most to gain by it. The phraseology used by Ms Morean on Tuesday evening was in keeping with that concept. On more than one occasion she stated that with goodwill on the part of both parties, Parliament can get going, legislation can be passed, and the country can be governed; as if the purpose of Parliament was simply to oil the wheels of government.
Parliament is not an adjunct to government. It is not, as Ms Morean also claims, one of the "three arms" of government. It is the fountainhead of government.
It is true that with goodwill on both sides the problem can be resolved. But what constitutes goodwill is not what Ms Morean thinks it is. Like Mr Manning, she rejects the idea of executive power sharing. Unlike Mr Manning, who merely says it hasn't worked in the past, Ms Morean makes the ridiculous claim that it would be unconstitutional.
Executive power-sharing, with or without alternating Prime Ministerships, is in fact the only way out of the situation. Manning must drop his foolish talk of "collaboration at Parliamentary level" (another empty phrase), fire some members of his bloated Cabinet, and offer their posts to the UNC. The horse-trading for Ministries must follow, not precede, the formulation of a plan for the country; for the sugar industry, for Tobago, for crime, for education, for poverty, for jobs. There will be reservations on one side or the other on the details, but not many; after all, the big quarrel during the elections was who stole the manifesto from whom.
If Manning is incapable of this, where is Rowley? Where are Valley, Bereaux, Imbert, Hinds and all the rest? Are they all as mentally constipated as Manning?
Why can't one or more of the PNM front line sound out like-minded UNC members, and bypass the leaders entirely? They could then approach the President with a proposal for a real government of national unity, and a Prime Minister (Rowley, Beckles, Baksh...who cares?) with majority support. Everything else would follow.
Copyright © Denis Solomon