Good Governance or Penance: Enhancing Westminster in the Caribbean

• Author: Cynthia Barrow-Giles
• Pages: 18-43

2 Good Governance or Penance:

Enhancing Westminster in the

Caribbean

Cynthia Barrow-Giles

Introduction

In modern societies, democracy is achieved not by the direct rule of

the people but through a representative system in which it is anticipated

that the people will have the final say. It is expected that the system will

be defined by the popular control over the political processes as well

as political equality in the exercise of that control. In representative

democracies like Westminster parliamentary systems, representatives

acting on behalf of the citizenry take decisions on behalf of the society.

In effect, democracy is achieved via the control of the citizens over their

representatives. So that the extent to which that control is achieved

and the equality of the control exercised by citizens are both crucial

elements of representative democracy. For the most part, electoral

systems are critical determinants of the exercise of such control and

the exercise of power. The second component of democracy is the

accountability of governmental institutions and public officials to the

electorate both directly and indirectly through Parliament and other

oversight mechanisms, such as the judiciary.

Within that context of what democracy ought to embody, I shall not

endeavour to deal with all the myriad problems confronting Westminster

in the Caribbean and their implication for the fulfilment of democracy.

Rather, I narrowly focus on what is seen as three institutional practices

that can minimize participation and control of critical decision-

making, limit the overall quality of representation and frustrate

consensual decision-making and lead to abuse of incumbency. Firstly,

the chapter focuses on the overall performance of the electoral system

in the region, arguing that in its present form the model certainly does

little to enhance representation and thus good governance. Secondly,

the chapter looks at parliamentarism and its intrinsic value or lack

thereof to the region given its tendency to restrain parliamentarians

in a context where perhaps greater cooperation is required. Finally, I

consider the value of a fixed term of office in a context where variability

Good Governance or Penance 19

and flexibility have been emphasized. Much of the discussions centres on

the reports of Constitution Reform Commissions which have considered

how governance can be improved regionally.

Framing Reform for the Commonwealth Caribbean

Nearly two decades ago in a relatively little known journal produced

by the University of Guyana, Harold A. Lutchman published an article

entitled ‘The Westminster System in the Commonwealth Caribbean:

Some Issues and Problems’. The many issues which he reflected upon

in 1995 continue to characterize the region and have proven to be so

culturally acceptable that some 20 years later, in 2014, we have been

unable or unwilling to transcend them. While Lutchman conceded that the

states of the Commonwealth Caribbean have enjoyed apparent efficiency

and are generally numbered among the most successful in achieving

satisfactory results, nonetheless, according to him the framers of the

Constitutions had clearly not anticipated a number of problems which had

manifested themselves shortly after independence.1 Notwithstanding these

unanticipated difficulties of Westminster in the Caribbean, the model has

enjoyed widespread support which has allowed several Commonwealth

Caribbean States to survive sudden and sometimes dramatic changes.2

Lutchman, however, concluded that ‘…elements of the Westminster

system have come under critical scrutiny regarding their suitability…’

for the region.3 Echoing these sentiments, Anthony Maingot also asserts

that while Westminster is certainly valued, its validity for the region can

be questioned.4 Nearly ten years later, in 2003, Prime Minister of St

Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, pointed to the travails of

Westminster parliamentary democracy in the Caribbean and reminded

us of its many limitations.5 These included, an externally located Head of

State; an insufficiently strong enforcement of the protective provisions

regarding individuals’ rights and freedoms; a first-past-the post electoral

system, which according to him does not permit a sufficiently fair and

democratic representation of voters’ preferences; the absence of any or

proper mechanisms for voters to bring their elected representatives to

account during their term in office; the highly inadequate and ineffective

control that the legislature exercises over the executive; the excessive

powers of the prime minister in both the constitutional and political

apparatuses; the lack of an appropriate mechanism for voters and non-

governmental organizations to routinely and consistently participate in the