By Yves Ephraim
GOVERNOR GENERAL TO CALL NATIONAL INQUIRY INDEPENDENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
In continuing with part two of my discussion on constitutional reform, I will focus on: a) term limit for the Prime Minister, and b) Empowering the Governor General to call a national inquiry, independent from the Prime Minister.
Before I expand upon each proposed amendment, I would like to remind you that it is important that the constitution be particularly watchful of those who control the powers of the state in order to preserve the rule of law; protect the rights of the individual; and administer justice blindly.
History has taught us that eloquent thugs and criminals are capable of being elevated to the highest office of a country.
If for any reason this country finds itself with a leader who demonstrates thug-like or criminal tendencies, the constitution must include tools for removing such a leader or limiting the damage he can do the country.
In practice, the constitution of Antigua and Barbuda gives our Prime Minister absolute power to the point where even the Police Commissioner cannot touch him, even if he commits a crime in broad daylight for all to see. This should not be. Everyone should be subject to the law of the land.
In Antigua and Barbuda, you do not get a sense that the law is applied equally to all citizens, including those in leadership.
TWO TERM LIMIT ON THE PRIME MINISTER
Term limits are already a thing in Antigua and Barbuda.
Directors of public companies and credit unions have mandatory term limits for at least 15 years, if my memory serves me.
If term limits are justified for public companies and credit union directors, how much more so are they justified for the Prime Minister who has the power to ruin a whole country.
I have heard the argument that term limits works to the disadvantage of the nation by prematurely setting aside a demonstrably good leader.
Let me debunk that argument.
History has actually shown that one of the defining characteristics of a good leader is that he recruits other good leaders to work with him and to succeed him.
A good leader is never so conceited to think that he is the only one who can lead. Invariably, death will eventually catch up with him at some point.
A good leader knows that he cannot do everything himself and therefore must be a good delegator in order to succeed. To succeed, a good leader must choose capable individuals to whom he can delegate with confidence.
This is the reasoning behind a US President picking a running mate. He seeks someone who has the same conviction to carry on his vision in the event of his premature death or incapacity.
A bad leader on the other hand, feels it necessary to micromanage everyone because he surrounds himself with individuals who he thinks are less capable than himself.
Because he is surrounded with charlatans, this bad leader fuels an aura of superiority.
Everyone around him constantly pays supine obeisance to him giving the appearance that this bad leader is indispensable, even to the level of the divine.
I have widely observed that after around the third term of any political party’s administration, that administration tends to disintegrate into corruption. The first two terms of a new administration is generally the most productive. By the third term very little gets done.
As an example, I watched how the Margaret Thatcher government did good to turn around the UK’s economy but come the third term of her administration, all the prior good was tainted by massive corruption scandal after scandal. Some involving the then “Minister of Fun”.
I have also noted that countries that have had a constant and healthy turnover of different administrations tended to be more prosperous and more democratic. We see that with the US and even Barbados.
Further, leaders in those countries were more inclined to stepdown for their poor performance or wrongdoing when caught.
For the above reasons, I would propose amending the constitution to set a limit of two successive terms (no more than 10 successive years) for the person who acts as the Prime Minister.
That person would have to stand aside for one term (no less than five years). However, that person will be eligible to run again, under the same limits, after standing aside for a term.
GOVENOR GENERAL EMPOWERED TO CALL A NATIONAL INQUIRY
There is a principle expressed in the Latin term: “Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa”, meaning “no one ought to be judge in his own cause”.
In my lifetime, the reason for calling a national inquiry has been to investigate the government itself.
I find it preposterous that the consent of the head of the government/cabinet is required in order to call an investigation into its own dealings. That’s a clear conflict of interests in my opinion.
Under my amendment to the constitution, The Governor General would be empowered to call for a national enquiry on the advice of the Senate (my reconstituted version) and having had at least one thousand signatures of citizens.
The set of circumstances under which the Governor General’s power can be exercised would be clearly articulated to include public disclosures of fraud.
Under this new dispensation, the Prime Minister will have no involvement other than to facilitate the process.
The law will give the Governor General special powers to revoke the PM’s appointment in the event he attempts to subvert the process.
I believe that the changes I propose for amendment to the constitution of Antigua and Barbuda will create an environment of accountability and provide the greatest protection for civil liberties.
More of my reforms to come.
