The coincidence of the state funeral of the late Prime Minister David Thompson and the announcement of the American mid-term election results on wednesday last, provide a canvas on which I can sketch an outline of how two former British colonies (Barbados and the United States, manage a major aspect of their constitutional arrangements.
The funeral required the presence of those who represent the three traditional powers of the state. These functionaries were present because the state, rising above the floor boards of politics, was delivering a “rooftop” honour to one of its departing sons who had attained the high and distinguished office of Prime Minister.
The state was paying tribute to one who had been elected “monarch”, and hence an honour initially granted to kings had devolved upon him.
So that the great powers of the state:
The legislative, the executive and the judicial Power represented by those who temporarily occupy the offices and carry out the relevant function. Current and former parliamentarians attended as part of the legislative power.
The permanent secretaries and other such civil servants who execute the policies and laws passed by those who exercise the legislative function reflected the executive power. So also do the members of the disciplined forces.
They are part of the executive and more, because their presence added ceremonial gravitas to the occasion and reinforced the critical element of our constitutional system, that we are ruled by law and not by might of arms.
Law is to a democracy what firepower is to a dictatorship, and the use of our state’s military power is commanded by the ultimate power of the civilian authority.
Hence the call “Hail to the Chief” is a constitutionally loaded statement supported by ceremonial and other salutes rendered by the “disciplined forces” to those civilians placed in authority over the military. We see it on Independence Day and we saw it on Wednesday.
His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice and the other judges also did their duty to the state.
Bound by judicial oaths to serve “our Sovereign Lady the Queen”, they too paid their respects to the late leader of Her Majesty’s Government of Barbados.
Now to the United States. President Barack Obama’s “problems” are rooted in the manner in which the founding fathers shaped their constitution when they broke away from England. Grievously affected by the autocratic exercise of the executive power of the King of England, they decided that their president should never have a seat in their Parliament.
So President Obama cannot sit in Congress (United States parliament) and neither can any of his cabinet ministers. Neither can he control the legislative process like our Prime minister does
Consistent with this approach, they also strictly separated the three great powers of state into different hands. This strict separation was designed to ensure that no President could ever become as powerful or as autocratic as King George II.
The Americans went further. Recognising the power of elections, they provided that presidents should be elected every four years, but that all the members of the lower house, should be elected for two years and senators for six, and one-third of the senators are elected every two years.
Hence the recent mid-term elections. they are a feature of the American system
Further, the United States president is elected separately from his party, and he may end up with the opposing party controlling the House of Representatives and the Senate, in which case he will “smell hell” to get legislation passed. That was Obama’s problem with the health care legislation.
Barbados has adopted the British way.
Our prime minister exercises most of the major powers of the former kings, but Prime Ministers rule under law which ensure they and their Cabinet can be removed by popular vote at elections, since they remain Members of Parliament.
So that in relation to the powers of state, we have kept the King’s successor (the Prime Minister) in parliament. The Americans have banned him from parliament, save for the delivery of the State of the Union address.
Similarly in Barbados, the Throne Speech is the only occasion on which the Queen or her Governor General is allowed in the Parliament
In either country, however, the powers of the state are recognised but dealt with differently, and on Wednesday last keen eyes observed such differences!
Ezra Alleyne is an attorney at law and former Deputy Speaker of the Barbados Parliament.
