UNTIL AND unless there is a fundamental change in the way we govern ourselves, party leaders acting in the capacity of Prime Minister are going to continue to operate in the same old way. This is particularly so after a general election when the Cabinet or the Executive which includes Ministers, Ministers of State or Junior Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are to be chosen.

It is the party leader on assuming the role of Prime Minister, who has the sole responsibility for choosing and confirming the members of the Executive. He may act alone or at his own discretion consult with others. He is not obliged to consult. In the Separation of Powers model - he would nominate his preferences for Ministers but would have to seek the approval of the Parliament of the Legislature. Parliament (MPs) would be required to scrutinise the Prime Minister's appointments.

THE TWO MODELS

In the existing model, members of the Executive (Cabinet) are primarily chosen from among the elected members with a few available from the nominated members in the Senate. This severely limits the talent, which can become available to the State through the Executive branch.

In a different model they - the Ministers - would and could not be drawn from the elected members. They, the MPs, would be primarily REPRESENTATIVES of their constituencies and real LEGISLATORS in the Parliament. If the Prime Minister (party leader) needed the services of any MP to the Executive (as a Minister) that person would have to resign from Parliament and be replaced by a new representative of the people in a by-election.

This is one aspect among others of the POWERS CONCENTRATED in the hands of the Jamaican Prime Minister that needs to be examined immediately after the October 16 General Election. This absolute power to name a Minister without scrutiny or oversight provides an open avenue for political patronage, while fostering mediocrity and cronyism masquerading as loyalty.

These arguments notwithstanding, at this time we are faced with the continuity of the old system - the Jamaican brand of the Westminster Export model.

On the morning of Thursday, October 17, 2002, either the leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) or the president of the People's National Party (PNP) will once again be called upon to exercise this absolute power of naming and recommending the names of his Ministers to the Governor-General for his automatic approval and appointment.

The pattern of appointments of Ministers throughout our political history have been similar.

THE PNP CABINET

Having been in office for three consecutive terms, the PNP has an advantage in name recognition.

If elected, P.J. Patterson will have little choice but to retain a number of former Ministers who are likely to be re-elected to Parliament. These include Peter Phillips, Portia Simpson Miller, Omar Davies, Robert Pickersgill, Paul Robertson, Maxine Henry-Wilson, John Junor, K.D. Knight, Donald Buchanan, Dean Peart, Arnold Bertram, Phillip Paulwell and Horace Dalley. Karl Blythe, who has been exonerated by the PNP President without the benefit of any public explanation, will return. Colin Campbell and Anthony Hylton are possible candidates as electoral casualties and so may not be considered.

Among the Ministers of State, Derek Kellier, Fitz Jackson, Wyckham McNeill, Michael Peart and Aloun N'Donbet Assamba will fancy themselves as knocking on the door of the Cabinet. In terms of sheer numbers, this represents fifteen former ministers, including the Prime Minister with at least another five electables knocking at the door.

In addition, there are some persons from the old Senate like Burchell Whiteman and A.J. Nicholson who will be positioned for possible re-appointments. The portfolio responsibilities will give some indication of the thinking in relation to leadership succession. The three leading contenders in the PNP are Peter Phillips, Portia Simpson Miller and the 'dark horse' Omar Davies.

THE NETTLEFORD COMMITTEE 1992

In 1992, the Manley Administration which included the present Prime Minister,
P.J. Patterson appointed a Committee - called the Group of Advisers on Government Structure - which made specific recommendations in relation to the size and function of the Cabinet/Executive among other things. They recommended that the "size of the Cabinet should reflect the Constitutional Minimum" of at least eleven Ministers. They based this on the requirements "of policy stability, cost effectiveness, reduction of waste and the need for better functional co-ordination of governmental activities. Against this background they recommended eleven Core Ministries, which would operate even if there were a change in the political administration. The ministries recommended were as follows:

• Office of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defence
• Ministry of Finance and Planning
• Ministry of Human Resources Development (Education, Training, Science and Technology, Culture)
• Ministry of Health and Environment
• Ministry of Agriculture and Mining
• Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism
• Ministry of Justice and National Security
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Services
• Ministry of Housing, Works and Public Utilities
• Ministry of Local Government, Community Development and Youth

These recommendations were never implemented. The demands of patronage remained the key determinant in the appointment of Ministers.

In our tradition of Ministerial appointments and portfolio distribution we do not begin with the requirements of good governance but rather start from the needs of the party and the personalities. This is sometimes called Political Engineering, real politick or plain pragmatism. The Prime Minister's hands are tied by the political/systemic umbilical cord which joins the party to the Parliament, and in turn the Parliament (Legislature) in an extricable way to the Cabinet (Executives).

Severing the latter part of the umbilical cord is a necessary prerequisite for increasing the ability to draw the best human skills and resources into governance. It can also prove sufficient to shatter a critical basis on which patronage and political cowardice thrives. It removes the decision making process for the career path of fifty-eight persons (MPs) from the whims and fancies of two persons (the Leaders) this has the potential for the release of creative and innovative thought and action in our Parliament by the elected constituency representatives.

THE JLP'S CABINET

The JLP bring to the table a number of persons, likely to be elected, who have served in the Executive arm of the State as Ministers in the previous Seaga Administration. They include Audley Shaw, Ed Bartlett, Karl Samuda, Ken Baugh, Horace Chang, Cliff Stone, Pearnel Charles, Mike Henry. Others who are likely to be elected and also be fancied by Party Leader Seaga are Babsy Grange, Delroy Chuck, Andrew Holness, Derek Smith, J.C. Hutchinson, Ruddy Spencer, Abe Dabdoub and Ernest Smith. Others likely to be pulled from a new Senate include Bruce Golding, Anthony Johnson, Ryan Peralto and David Panton. These possible appointees from the Parliament - inclusive of the House of Representatives and the Senate - exceeds twenty already.

The mood of the general electorate as well as certain movers and shakers in the society seems to be one desirous of some united approach to Governance. The large number of persons anticipating appointment as Ministers in the next administration in either party does not allow for significant inputs at that level from the broader
society.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

If the traditional political parties are serious about inclusiveness, then moving full speed to meaningful constitutional reform is a necessary prerequisite. The present system does not and cannot provide the flexibility that is necessary if we are to adopt the measures suggested by the Nettleford 'Report of Committee of Advisors or Government Structure'. They also recommended the proposals made by the Stone Committee on Parliamentary Responsibilities. (1991).

As the Nettleford Report stated in 1992:

Restructuring must start with the identification of priority issues relating to structures, personnel, policy and external relationships.

Meaningful reform results would be best achieved in a framework consensus, participation and flexible adaptation, fortified by political will. The advisors concluded:

"Genuine and sustainable development will only be realised when ordinary citizens begin to perceive themselves not only as the target of development but more so as the essential creators of this process. It is only in this way that the initiative and creativity of the people can be released. Here it is not so much power for the people, but power to the people."