I have always been an advocate of the four-year term of office for members of the House of Representatives, who are given the title “Honorable” and are entrusted with the power to govern, at present, for five long years. For that period, Ministers of government exercise untrammeled power for good or ill, depending on whether they are there to serve the people, or to serve themselves and, the interests of their financial backers.
In many regards, our constitution is a model, based on the practices and traditions of the British parliamentary system. The British have a five-year term, so we have a five-year term. The British Prime Minister calls elections, when he thinks that the political climate favors re-election of his party so, we have the same. The British have a two-party system so, we have a two-party system.
The British parliamentary system suits the British because the individual parliamentarian has a sense of honor. If he did not, he could never be elected and, if he fails to live up to the code, he could not hold the high office of Minister. From our experience since Independence, would you say the same about our Ministers of government?
The Lord Acton principle about the corrupting influence of power has proved to be true, every time. It follows that the longer the term of office, the stronger that influence becomes. Our nation would be better served if there was a four-year term of office for our representatives and, a fixed date for elections. Then, the members of government would use their energies and give their efforts to serve the nation, knowing that there was a reckoning on a certain day, not too far away.
One of the arguments in favor of a term of office longer than three years, is that a government could not, in that period, complete any significant developmental project that may be in their party’s manifesto.
My answer to that argument is this. There is no assurance that a significant developmental project will be completed in five years. If it is not, what assurance do we have that on a change of government, the project will be continued? That is a weakness in our two-party system. Wouldn’t it be better if there was a long-term phased development, to which both parties were committed? After all, it shouldn’t be too difficult for all our best minds to cooperate in the making of such a plan. Then, projects would be executed to completion, regardless of which party controlled the government.
I have read in a local newspaper that the Honorable Francis Fonseca, Leader of the Opposition, is in favor of a four-year term, with a fixed date for general elections. Is it to be taken that the People’s United Party intends to include this as a plank in their manifesto for the next election? If the government were to introduce a bill to amend the constitution to give effect to such a proposal, it would normally need the support of the Opposition to pass the bill. If our present government did so, it has the numbers to pass the bill by itself but, it is not the kind of action their self-serving members would support.
There are many optimists, who believe that our system of electing governments can be improved. Some are advocates of proportional representation, which they say would be more representative of the will of the people, that our first-past-the-post system. They are right about that. It would also reduce the power of the major parties because, a third party could more easily garner seats in parliament.
Our problem is self-serving and dishonorable Ministers. Proportional representation will not solve that problem; instead, it may create a more serious one. This is what can happen. Let’s say that there was a close election which would return a House of 17 to 14 seats, based on our present, first-past-the-post two-party system. With proportional representation, each total might be reduced by three and, those six seats won by a third party. This would be the division: 14 seats to the party with the highest number of seats, 11 seats to the next highest and 6 seats to the third party. The six could decide which of the two major parties would form the government. This does not make for stability.
The four-year term would do more to improve the quality of governance than proportional representation.
Consider this. What is the worst thing a government can have? The answer is, corrupt Ministers. What is better for a corrupt Minister - four years or five? The answer is five.
In a-four year term, the honorable Ministers will exert more influence on their corrupt colleagues, who endanger their re-election prospects.
With a four-year term, the people get to judge the performance of a government one year earlier and, this change will lead, after a few such terms, to an elimination of politicians who are unworthy to hold high office.
With a four-year term, the Integrity Commission in the exercise of its duties related to the Corruption is Public Life Act, will be more efficacious than it is now.
Amandala

---