The Independents and early elections
Leon de Fishman writes: It is indeed unfortunate that the members crossing the floor and thus creating the tension are unwilling to accept any responsibility for their actions. Apparently they could not stand the heat and ran out of the kitchen. I am pretty sure that they would not run away from their marriages because of differing opinions on a given subject, so why quit on the arrangement they had with the PPM without giving it more thought.
While I agree with Anthony Eden’s stance based on his personal belief, he must remember that he was elected to do the work of the people, so therefore country before self. It was not necessary for him to abandon his colleagues because of differing opinions on this topic. All he had to do was agree to disagree on ‘homosexual marriage’ and move on.
I also believe the group of five is wrong when they say that the premier cannot call for early elections. In fact, in my opinion Section 84.2 of the Constitution is intended to accommodate situations such as this. So yes, if the premier and his party are unable to function, he can call for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, which would result in the need for an election. However, the governor, using her discretion, can either assent or dissent.
In reaching her decision the governor will have to consider whether any group can get the support of a majority of the MLAs and thus be able to form a government. Perhaps the group of five will form a coalition with the CDP to form the government. I doubt it. Right now, what they are proposing is a coalition with the PPM, similar to that formed when McKeeva Bush was removed as premier.
You see, the PPM and Ezzard Miller and Arden McLean agreed to support the PNA, thus creating a coalition government. If they say that no coalition was formed then, the PNA was appointed contrary to the Constitution. Will Ezzard, Arden and Tony now say whether there was an agreement and thus a coalition or did they act contrary to the Constitution with their actions in December 2012?
At present they are also saying that the governor has to consult all MLAs before calling for an early dissolution and thus early elections. This view is also contrary to the Constitution, which says in Section 84- (2): “The Governor, acting after consultation with the Premier, may at any time, by proclamation, dissolve the Legislative Assembly.” Note, it does not say all MLAs but instead refers only to consultation with the Premier,
So I recommend that the group of five study the Constitution a little more to avoid acting contrary to it.
One more thing. The reason they gave for wanting to support PPM is that they want the implementation of ‘one man, one vote’. In other words, if everything was in place for elections under OMOV, they would support early elections.
So do not believe for one instant that they are interested in keeping the PPM in power for the good of country but rather for their own selfish agendas.
The longer I live the clearer I understand the wisdom in Barefoot’s song called Lawyers, Preachers and Politicians!
That North east corner has nothing but big barrels of air.
This viewpoint is spot on with regard to the constitution.
References to the governor doing this or that in consultation with the premier are vestigial euphemisms for the premier deciding and the governor reserving the ability to veto the decision.
Our system is after all based on the UK’s parliamentary system in which the Queen’s role is for all intents and purposes ceremonial in nature, and which operates without a written constitution based almost entirely on amorphous tradition and precedent.
If the Governor (or the Queen for that matter) were ever to take it upon him or herself to use their apparent power to subvert the democratic process there would be a public outcry leading to constitutional reform and the weakening of their power.
The system in the uk at the time our constitutional order was enacted was that the prime minister was for all intents and purposes able to call an election whenever he or she pleased (albeit theoretically in consultation with Her Majesty).
This was subsequently changed by the passing of a law requiring fixed terms, but we have no such law.
Ironically it is precisely because of the scenario inveighed in the first paragraph of the viewpoint that this ability is maintained. Just because an MLA remains on the government bench does not mean he or she supports the Premier’s agenda.
If the Premier does not believe he has the support required to govern effectively and move the country forward he should be entitled to call an election so that someone (even he) can get a new mandate from the people to do so.
The Governor would need a VERY good reason to subvert this.
For those interested here is a link to the 2009 Constitution http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1379/pdfs/uksi_20091379_en.pdf
Wow. This is the worst viewpoint ever. Fellow Caymanians please take note of the necessity to ignore such myopic close-minded pseudo-analysis. End the party system. Return to statesmanship. Eat less hot meat. Think.
@10:01pm 3/2 Why do you want Caymanians to ignore the viewpoint? Is it because you are afraid they might learn something or it that you just do not like it and don’t want anyone else to like it?
Dear Leon.Stick to fishing bro, you know nothing about the constitution and even less about recent political events. Your entire Viewpoint is riddled with false information and is deliberately misleading, which qualifies you for an executive PPM position. Nice try but stick to conch gut buddy.
Your comment might have been taken seriously had you pointed out exactly where the writer was wrong on the Constitution.I have gone on line and checked Section 84-2 of the Constitution as mentioned in the viewpoint and it is quoted correctly. Perhaps you have your own version of the Constitution and it says something different; if so please share it so that others can see for themselves.You tell us that Fishman’s viewpoint is misleading ,yet you offer not even one example, just not good enough.If you are unable to present us with your proof, we will have to assume that Mr Fishman is right.
Amen..couldn’t have said it better…they are all in it for their own personal agendas, not ours…