The illness of Prime Minister David Thompson is of a challenging nature. Here is a Prime Minister in office, stricken by pancreatic cancer that has left him unable to carry out the functions of the office as he would wish.
It is a problem not within our experience and there has been an understanding reluctance by many Barbadians to be drawn into a discussion of what should be the solution.
In yesterday’s Saturday Sun, however, Mr Lionel Sealy, a former general secretary of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP), broke the silence and spoke directly to the issue. Mr Sealy declared that “in the interest of Prime Minister Thompson, who is a son, a father, with a vibrant family, consideration should be given to replacing him as Prime Minister, a position to which he can return, once he has regained his health”.
Mr Sealy’s statement is a major contribution to public debate on the Prime Minister’s illness. It contains ideas that would attract the attention of those of us who are concerned with the proper application of constitutional practice.
Once the nature of the Prime Minister’s illness was officially disclosed, the national interest should have been a major consideration equal to any consideration of Mr Thompson’s dignity and privacy.
Prime Ministers are unelected monarchs possessing most of the powers of ancient kings, but with their powers circumscribed only by the rule of law, the collective action of their Cabinet colleagues and the vitiating power of the members of the elected house of Parliament upon whom they rely between elections for their political authority and power.
Mature democracies never lose sight of this truth, for it is always recognised that the people and the body politic have a continuing interest in the physical and mental health of its prime ministers and presidents.
Last week, I referred to the cases of prime ministers Eden and Macmillan.
In Eden’s case, the British Press, aided by leading political commentators, called for his resignation when it became clear that his well known gall bladder complaints and post-surgical problems had led him to take daily painkillers, which it was thought might have been capable of affecting his judgment on some critical decisions.
He resigned.
In Macmillan’s case, his political problems began with Jack Profumo, his War minister, lying to him and to the House of Commons, and escalated with the revelations that Profumo, Christine Keeler, Lucky Gordon and a Russian (spy) Ivanov had become so “wrapped up in each other” that security issues loomed large.
But it was a diagnosis of inoperable prostate cancer following closely upon the Profumo scandal that signalled the end.
No one questioned the intellectual capacity of either man. But the public interest required that both prime ministers should have been physically, as well as intellectually, capable of satisfying the demands of the job, and the Press as the fourth estate led the call for his resignation.
Macmillan also went.
Mr Sealy’s intervention speaks to the national concern, as well as to the private welfare and concerns of the Prime Minister and his family. The language he uses is interesting. He says: “Consideration should be given to replacing him as Prime Minister . . . .”
At first blush this suggests action other than that of the Prime Minister himself is not ruled out among the options available to solve the present situation.
In my view, constitutionally speaking, the circumstances which have arisen call for the appointment of a new Prime Minister. Whether this appointment is triggered by Mr Thompson’s resignation, or by his replacement as a result of appropriate action within the Constitution, may be a matter more of form than substance. I think the present circumstances, unfortunate as they are, call for action along the lines suggested by Mr Sealy.
I also support the call for amended legislation to protect a Prime Minister’s family in such circumstances. It is long overdue. As far back as 1994, I was on public record calling for better treatment for former Prime Ministers.
In the present circumstances, I totally agree that every resource should continue to be made available to assist our Prime Minister in his recovery, with the usual parliamentary courtesies being observed, in the first place, behind the Speaker’s chair.
In mature democracies some political issues are dealt with in a non-partisan manner. This is one such issue, and we owe a debt to Mr Sealy for raising the issue in open public debate.
* Ezra Alleyne is an attorney-at-law and a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.
