The announcement that Richard Sealy would act as Prime Minister in the absence of Freundel Stuart is as potent a statement about the state of politics in the Democratic Labour Party, as it is about the extreme power that a Westminster-type prime minister has in a small democracy, bereft as it always is of the rebalancing impact of a vigorous and multifaceted Press.
In the United States the people elect the president and vice-president but the president does not have a free hand in deciding who will be the chief justice (and judges) of the Supreme Court. That’s simply because his choice for the position has to be voted on by the Senate.
Not so in our neck of the woods.
The Prime Minister simply decides on his choice and the deed is as good as done. He only has to submit the name of the person chosen to the Governor General for appointment.
Moreover, although the Constitution says the Prime Minister must consult the Leader of the Opposition, this may amount to nothing more than an exchange of polite and perfunctory letters passing between two political giants.
The recent political fuss over the appointment of Barbados’ new Chief Justice only served to reinforce the “brute force” power of a latter-day elected king whom we have named the Prime Minister, for if the law needs to be changed, then it is only a matter of time.
The Prime Minister controls Parliament since his party holds the majority of the seats and, more often than not, he controls the Cabinet since every member owes his or her appointment to the Prime Minister.
Time and chance has allowed Stuart to appoint a Chief Justice and the resignation of Sir Branford Taitt now places the presidency of the Senate in his hands. Plus, the position of Governor General has been vacant since the latter part of last year.
It is difficult to recall any previous Prime Minister being favoured with such an opportunity to shape the landscape of the public weal by the appointment of a trio of such important personages.
Although the Senate chooses its president, the realities of politics will dictate that the presidency is a part of the spoils of office and such an appointment cannot be reached without the Prime Minister’s decisive and critical input.
In fact, the apex of the exercise of prime ministerial power is in the recommendation for the position of Governor General. Constitutionally speaking, the Governor General is superior to the Prime Minister. As the Queen’s representative, he is endowed with the power and authority of appointing the Prime Minister but whenever the office of Governor General is vacant, it is to the Prime Minister that we look for the power to recommend an appointee.
The Constitution hardly imposes any restraints on the Prime Minister in regard to these appointments, which are only scratching the surface when it comes to the powers attaching to the office. The said appointments are solely at the discretion of the Prime Minister who, in these instances, has greater power than an American president.
It is because we recognize these powers attaching to the office that we are so critical of any Prime Minister whose public persona does not project the possession of the awesome powers that we place in his hands. Then we may describe him as “saying nutten” or, as in Trinidad, “that the driver cannot drive”.
The constitutional reality is that anyone who holds the office of Prime Minister is endowed with awesome power. Politically, however, that power does not speak for itself, but must be so exercised that it speaks volumes!
