The downside of a fixed election date

Dear Editor,

Recently, a story in one of the daily newspapers carried the remarks of Matt Aubry, executive director of the Organization for Responsible Government (ORG), in which he recommended that The Bahamas move to an electoral system of fixed election dates. While the system has advantages, it is not the panacea that some may think.

Now the FNM party did promise to pass legislation to introduce fixed election dates.

In 2019, when asked by the local news media when the introduction of the necessary legislation will happen, the prime minister indicated that it would happen soon.

This assumed reform to the electoral process is frequently promised during political campaigns, but when the reality of this built-in advantage takes hold, it is soon pushed to the back burner.

A little history of the system of calling elections in The Bahamas.

In the early days of the House, in the 18th Century, the governor had sole discretion of when the House was dissolved and elections called.

Whenever he had difficulty with House members who frequently opposed his legislative priorities, or when the House itself was in disarray, the governor would prorogue or dissolve the House.

When the loyalists took over the business of the House in 1795, one of their first acts was to pass legislation to fix the life of the House. An act to limit the duration of assemblies better known as the Septennial Act, which fixed the life of the House to seven years, was enacted in 1795.

The parliamentary term remained at seven years for the next 167 years until it was reduced to its current lifespan of five years in the amendments to the House of Assembly Elections Act in 1962.

Most people who support the introduction of a fixed date for elections do so out of desperation and frustration with the Westminster System, which reposes enormous powers in the office of the prime minister. One of these powers is the power to determine the dates for the dissolution of Parliament and the setting of the date for election.

This democracy deficit can be used to give the prime minister’s party a strategic advantage, but in the local personality politics, strategic advantage is usually no advantage at all.

I fear that a fixed election date would encourage and facilitate even longer sustained campaigning, notwithstanding the fact the country seems to be in perpetual campaign mode.

Campaigns in this system are usually expensive and give the prospective candidates who have money a greater advantage, so the playing field is not leveled.

Moreover, the parliamentary term in The Bahamas has been allowed to run its full course since 1968 even though the 1968 term only lasted four years.

This demonstrates stability and a level of certainty and a recognition that general elections are expensive exercises.

Setting the date for the dissolution of Parliament and the date for elections is only one of the powers the prime minister has and this power is exercised once every five years. The prime minister has so many other powers that he carries out on a daily basis which affect the lives of citizens.

A fixed date for elections should bring more certainty, stability and transparency to the electoral process. It could also lead to quite a bit of awkwardness.

The awkwardness results from two principles in the Westminster model.

Firstly, the government is only the government so long as it commands the majority of members in the House, and secondly, the prime minister is able to advise the governor general at any time to dissolve the Parliament.

With these two trump cards in his pocket, the prime minister is able to determine the election date at his discretion despite fixed date elections having been enacted by Parliament.

Both the United Kingdom and Canada have introduced fixed election dates, the UK in 2011 and the federal Canadian parliament in 2007.

The awkwardness of fixed election dates within the Westminster System became apparent almost immediately in Canada.

Canada set the date for its fixed date general elections for the third Monday in October in the fourth year, after the previous election. October 19, 2009 was then set for the first date certain election.

However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s coalition government collapsed in 2008 and he called for early general elections to be held in October 2008, just one year before the first scheduled fixed election date. Awkward!

Historically, The Bahamas has been very slow in moving to reform its democratic institutions, particularly the institution of Parliament.

Parliamentarians in The Bahamas still do not accept nor appreciate the oversight functions of Parliament.

This is apparent in the fact that Cabinet ministers do not take seriously, parliamentary questions posed by the opposition; neither do they respect committees when they request information from the government and the reports generated by committees.

It is embarrassing that judges, politicians and other senior officials still swear their allegiance and fidelity to the Queen and her successors rather than to the Constitution of The Bahamas and its laws.

It is time that the Officials Oaths Act was repealed or amended to reflect the reality of the constitution and the aspirations of Bahamians.

I do not think that a fixed date for elections on its own will advance democracy as some may think. I believe that there are more fundamental reforms that are more urgently needed.

— Maurice Tynes

The post The downside of a fixed election date  appeared first on The Nassau Guardian.

source https://thenassauguardian.com/the-downside-of-a-fixed-election-date/