We have often heard it said, and have said it many times in this space, that where one stands on an issue often depends on where one sits.
Nowhere does that play out more clearly than in the political realm.
We thought of this recently as we watched the formation of the new government of The Bahamas with the prime minister appointing 22 ministers, including himself, then stacking the executive further with seven parliamentary secretaries, providing jobs for nearly every Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) member-elect.
That brings to 29 the size of the executive with two ministers appointed to the Senate: Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Ryan Pinder and Minister of Economic Affairs Michael Halkitis.
That means that 27 of the 32 PLP MPs will be a part of the executive, and one will be speaker (Patricia Deveaux, the Bamboo Town MP, who made the revelation on social media last week).
That leaves just four PLP members on the backbench, including the deputy speaker.
In our research, we have not seen a previous administration with such a large executive, and question why the prime minister believes it is necessary to have an executive of this size, notwithstanding the many significant challenges the country faces.
His explanation that he needs to provide jobs for all these MPs because he wants “all hands on deck” will not align with the tone he will certainly seek to set as minister of finance when the new Parliament convenes and he begins to update the country on the dire state of public finances, and the need to be cautious in how every dime is spent.
His likely explanation to demanding unions when they come calling that the nation’s coffers are empty will also come into question.
When he was in opposition in 2011, Davis, then-deputy leader of the PLP, railed against then-Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s 17-member “Gussie Mae” Cabinet, calling it a waste of taxpayer money.
Contributing to debate on the Boundaries Commission report in the House of Assembly on November 29, 2011, when he objected to a reduction of House seats, Davis said if Ingraham was truly concerned about saving taxpayers’ money, he could “more sensibly have appointed a Cabinet of nine, including himself”.
“Our constitution clearly crafts a Parliament of elected representatives in the House of Assembly and an appointed Senate to creation legislation,” Davis said.
“The executive comes from the Parliament and is answerable to the Parliament, but when the prime minister co-opts almost the entire group of supporters from the House for his government, he corrupts the intent of the constitution.”
In a speech that meticulously outlined the historical context of the number of parliamentary seats, Davis, in referencing the 1964 constitution, explained: “The minimum Cabinet of eight members plus a premier was crafted to, logically, suggest a reasonable ratio between ministers and members of Parliament — a ratio which would see three House members for each minister.
“The concept was that a majority party in the House of Assembly with just more than half the members, could have one of its members selected to be speaker and still have more backbenchers than there were ministers.
“Well, for the past five years, we have had a party, the FNM, with 23 members elected creating a Cabinet of 18 and still, today, causing the taxpayer to have to pay for 17 ministers — TWICE the minimum required by the constitution!”
Davis continued: “And the prime minister has the temerity to suggest that reducing the number of members of Parliament from 41 to 38 will save money?
“If he was seriously concerned with saving money, he could have reduced his Cabinet by half at any time and saved the taxpayer literally millions of dollars!
“But he chooses to sell the fiction of prudence while squandering money on a Gussie Mae Cabinet.”
Davis now has five more Cabinet ministers than Ingraham had at the time he expressed strong disapproval over the size of the 17-member Cabinet.
We wonder now how the new prime minister and minister of finance intends to sell his own message of prudence against the backdrop of his previously stated views on Cabinet size, given his own super large executive.
‘Elected dictatorship’
But this goes beyond dollars and cents.
The decision by the prime minister to stack the executive with so many PLP members for certain corrupts the intent of our constitution, to borrow Davis’ words from 2011.
Article 72(1) of The Bahamas Constitution states: “There shall be a Cabinet for The Bahamas which shall have the general direction and control of the government of The Bahamas and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament.”
Article 72(2) states: “The Cabinet shall consist of the prime minister and not less than eight other ministers (of whom one shall be the attorney general)…”
Parliament’s role in keeping the executive accountable is severely diminished by having the vast majority of elected members on the governing side serving as part of the executive.
Though Cabinet ministers, who include ministers of state, are selected from the Parliament, once sworn in as ministers, they are collectively bound to the decisions of the Cabinet.
If a minister of the government does not support a decision, policy or legislation put forward in Parliament on behalf of the Cabinet, it is the minister’s duty to resign from Cabinet.
Though parliamentary secretaries are not members of the Cabinet, Section 21 of the Manual of Cabinet and Ministry Procedure clearly states, “A parliamentary secretary is a member of the government.
“At parliamentary meetings or committee meetings, he may play a full part by means of suggestion and criticism in the formulation of policy.”
However, the manual makes clear, “Once the government has established its course of action, it is the duty of the parliamentary secretary to give that course his full support in public.”
During his time as speaker, the ever-controversial Halson Moultrie repeatedly pointed to the bastardization of the Westminster system due in part to the size of the executive (which includes ministers and parliamentary secretaries).
In 2018, Moultrie called for a constitutional amendment to address this issue.
“In the interest of transparency and accountability, there should be an amendment establishing an upper limit for the appointment of ministers to eliminate the supersized Cabinet we have become accustomed to,” Moultrie said.
“I recommend that combined, the size of Cabinet and parliamentary secretaries should not exceed an upper limit of 17 or 43 percent of the elected members of Parliament. As long as the status quo remains, it will demonstrate our lack of commitment to the ideals of accountability and transparency.”
Before Moultrie, Dr. Kendal Major, who was speaker between 2012 and 2017, raised the same concern.
In 2016, Major said large Cabinets violate the separation of powers outlined in the constitution by creating an “elected dictatorship”.
“When you have…38 members of Parliament and the majority of the members of the governing side are Cabinet ministers, what you have done is you have removed and violated the principle of separation of powers, and you have created an elected dictatorship because you have Cabinet members who, because of individual and Cabinet responsibility, have a sense of loyalty to the Cabinet,” Major said.
“They bring that into the House of Assembly and it affects the level of scrutiny and accountability to air matters in an open and honest fashion.”
Of the 38 elected members of Parliament in The Bahamas, 15 were at the time full Cabinet ministers and four were ministers of state.
One senator was a full minister and one was a minister of state. Three PLP MPs were at the time parliamentary secretaries.
“The purpose of Cabinet, other than its policy responsibility and the direction and control of government, is to be answerable to the Parliament,” Major reminded.
“…What we have found since the early 1990s up to now is Cabinets that have become overwhelmingly large and have taken the lion’s share of the members of Parliament in the House.
“That decision by the executive or by the various prime ministers within itself has destroyed, in one fell swoop, the spirit of what answerable to Parliament means or… what
Westminster was all about.”
The opposition (the Free National Movement) at the time had repeatedly criticized the size of Prime Minister Perry Christie’s Cabinet.
Former Minister of Labour Dion Foulkes said that Christie had formed “the most expensive government” in The Bahamas.
But Christie said his Cabinet was similar in size to the one formed by former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham in 2007. Ingraham’s Cabinet contingent was reduced to 17 later in that term.
While backbenchers generally do not carry the same influence or have the power to impact policy the way a member of the executive does, a strong backbench is vital to ensuring Parliament effectively fulfills its role in keeping the executive accountable.
If almost all of the elected government MPs are a part of the executive, then the likelihood of a more accountable executive diminishes considerably.
Motives
Some PLPs have suggested that the large number of Cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries is the prime minister’s way of giving the younger generation of politicians Cabinet-level experience.
This is an explanation Perry Christie previously used, claiming he was creating a “bridge to the future”.
There is also the possibility that Davis intentionally reduced the strength of the backbench to ensure members remain loyal to him and are less likely to publicly criticize or object to government policy decisions and other actions.
A Government of Canada publication rightly observed: “If the party in power can maintain the appearance of solidarity, it will be more successful in convincing the public that the decisions it has taken — however unpopular — are the right ones.”
Davis has sought to justify his Gussie Mae executive by stating that he needs the best and brightest minds around the table to help solve our biggest problems, but this seems more like a convenient excuse to provide more pay for PLP MPS than an explanation that can hold water; it has the added benefit to him of increasing the likelihood that his side’s members will stay in line.
It may also be that Davis wishes to reduce the temptation for corruption.
The new prime minister has in the past spoken of the need for members of Parliament to earn more money to discourage them from being corrupt.
MPs currently earn just $28,000.
If they are appointed to Cabinet, they earn another $66,000 (plus duty allowance of $5,000) or they earn $60,000 (plus duty allowance of $5,000) as a minister of state.
If they are appointed parliamentary secretaries, MPs earn an additional $45,000 (plus duty allowance of $3,000).
Members of the executive and their families also get other benefits, like full health insurance.
In 2014, then-Deputy Prime Minister Davis told a reporter that raising MPs’ salaries would “remove the temptation for politicians to do things that are not right. Because if they (MPs) are earning a living by doing this, then there would be no need for them to do anything else. I think that’s what the Bahamian public has to understand.”
In February 2021, Englerston MP Glenys Hanna-Martin expressed a different view.
She called for MPs to take pay cuts given The Bahamas’ economic position.
“We should be taking a cut. But we don’t want to do it. We don’t want to sacrifice. But you’re telling people you have to wait a year, two years for your money,” she said in the House of Assembly.
“Something is wrong with that picture. You cannot send a signal that you are entitled to better standards or accommodations than average Bahamians.”
Given that Hanna-Martin has been re-elected, this time back in government, and given that our fiscal situation is even more critical than in February, we wonder whether this is still her view and whether now as a senior Cabinet minister, she will impress upon the minister of finance what she previously described as the need for MPs to take pay cuts.
We will wait to see whether Minister Hanna-Martin’s stand on the issue is unchanged even though she sits now on another side of the political divide.
We also urge Prime Minister Davis to be mindful of the significant damage the former prime minister caused himself and his administration due to his many flip-flopped positions, and contradictory actions.
Saying one thing in opposition and doing another thing entirely different when in government is a sure-fire way to trigger the swift depletion of the public’s trust.
The post A new pay day appeared first on The Nassau Guardian.
source
https://thenassauguardian.com/a-new-pay-day/
