Many have asked why should we have an executive president rather than an executive prime minister as currently exists.

Both Mr Manning and Mr Panday have opted for the executive presidential model. Their motive, as I understand it, is that this would allow for the selection of the most capable individuals to be members of the Cabinet as many talented persons in T&T are unwilling to face the rough and tumble of electoral politics.

No doubt it is for this reason a significant number of Cabinet members of all governments have been drawn through the Senate.

However, the fear has been expressed that the executive president model as set out in the current Working Draft combines the powers of the current President with those of the Prime Minister without significant checks and balances on executive power. In my view with appropriate safeguards and under the right conditions there are a number of advantages to be gained from the adoption of the executive presidential model. What are these safeguards and conditions?

- An executive president must be elected by direct preferential majority vote of the entire electorate in T&T.

Such an electoral process will allow all voters to have a say as to which candidate would serve us best as executive president.

The president must be limited to serving for two terms of five years each.

There should be fixed election dates.

- In this system the elected MPs would be truly the representatives of the various constituencies and would serve for a period of five years subject to recall.

Accordingly without the burden of ministerial office we can expect more effective representation and therefore the interests of the people would be better served without the potential for weak government.

If this is accepted then the PNM’s abhorrence of proportional representation blows away.

A system of mixed proportional representation would ensure that significant numbers of people in T&T would not be disenfranchised.

It would also introduce a check and balance on executive power in appropriate circumstances.

 - The Senate should mirror the representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of a mixed form of proportional representation.

The Senators should be appointed by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader(s) of the respective parties represented in the House.

The number of Independent Senators should equal the number of Senators appointed by the Majority Leader and be appointed by the president from among the nominees of designated civil society organisations to include labour, business and media.

This formulation of the Senate would itself create an effective check and balance as a majority would require one or more of the Independent Senators voting in favour of legislation or appointments.

- The appointments of Chief Justice, Auditor General, the DPP, chairpersons of the election board, the Public Service Commission and the Police Service Commission should be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Senate. A Joint Committee of the Senate nominates persons with the appropriate qualifications to serve in all of these posts and these persons must be approved by the supporting votes of at least 60 per cent of the Senate.

It is vital for the process of dialogue to involve the citizens being informed of the options available on each issue and the pros and cons of each such option. This process of naming and framing the issues will allow citizens to participate in the finding of solutions. In this way if the consultation adopts the recommendations of a critical mass of the people then as a nation we will be able to move forward together.

Timothy Hamel-Smith

via e-mail