The case for a national vote for Cabinet leaders
James E. Whittaker writes: One of the most common complaints among the voting populace in the Cayman Islands is the continual lack of positive outcomes on the key issues facing the country: the cost of living, affordable housing, energy, healthcare, education and more.
Many of us believe the root cause of this is because our elected officials, who are placed in the highest positions of government leadership, are often inexperienced and unqualified and, thus, largely incapable of effectively resolving Cayman’s ever-growing problems, hurting us economically, socially and environmentally while placing Cayman’s future prosperity at evermore risk.
While not all elected officials fall into this category, our continued inability to resolve the major challenges facing the Cayman Islands can be linked to an ‘overall’ lack of leadership competency.
This is not to posit in the least that we should just keep retreading legacy politicians solely based on experience. As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. However, we should broaden the powers of the voters to assess who is most fit to lead.
That said, ‘mandating’ levels of experience and academic and/or professional qualifications for elected officials is highly problematic, for many valid reasons, in a democracy. Ultimately, the voters must have the right to select whomever among them they feel best serves their interests if there are no legally disqualifying criteria, such as criminal convictions or citizenship-status disqualifiers.
How, then, can voters of the Cayman Islands better address our challenge of enhancing the quality of its overall leadership and thus attain better government performance and outcomes for the people?
I believe we must start by creating three distinct branches of government, which encompasses national, constituency and district voting.
1) The executive branch of government would be the first branch, comprising the premier and ministers elected through a national vote. The elected members of the executive branch lead the country and the ministries, and some of its members — namely, the premier, minister of finance and minister of tourism — are mandated members of Cabinet.
2) The Parliament of the Cayman Islands would be the second branch — the legislative branch — elected through a constituency poll which remains unchanged from the current status quo under the one-man-one-vote process. Members of parliament encompass the majority seats in Cabinet, which remains the body responsible for policy formulation and legislation.
3) District councils would be the third formal branch, with leadership boards that are democratically elected through district votes. The district councils consult with members of parliament of the constituencies in their district on an ongoing basis to continually address issues critical to the voters in those districts.
Much like elected county boards and commissions in the United States, it is highly probable that district councils would also act as a natural conduit for better preparing future politicians at the MP and executive levels in the Cayman Islands, further enhancing leadership competency in the long term.
Under the proposed three-tier governmental structure, the voters of the Cayman Islands would have more power to decide who is best to lead the country, as electors would be casting three distinct votes each election: a national vote (premier and ministers), a constituency vote (members of parliament) and district cotes (district council leaders).
While the executive branch would lead the overall government and ministries, it could not pass legislation as that would remain within the powers of the elected members of parliament. This would ultimately provide a greater level of checks and balances on power than the status quo, and force greater cooperation and collaboration between the executive branch and members of parliament to act in the best interests of the country.
With the current electoral system, Cayman’s elected officials can often win their MP positions with just a few hundred constituency votes, and some are then elevated to the highest positions of power in the land through closed-door negotiations post election — what we often call “horse-trading”.
I strongly argue that horse-trading for the positions of premier and ministers amongst elected officials and party members after elections are over removes crucial decision-making ability of the voting public during the election. It is the public that should make those critical democratic determinations directly. As a result of the current approach, at the moment, our voters have very little say in who ultimately leads Cayman.
The ultimate decisions for leadership positions often now depend on factors such as party position, personal affiliations, wealth and influence, and various other ‘non-competency’-related considerations. And we wonder why we continue to have poor outcomes towards our major national issues every four years?
The status quo is clearly not the most effective or democratic way to select the most qualified and competent persons to lead the country, and it is now time that we change this.
If the premier and the ministers are elected nationally, the only selective decision making thereafter is that the premier would select the deputy premier from any of the other elected members of the executive branch or Parliament. That’s it. No more closed-door deals on who gets to lead. Cayman’s voters decide.
If national voting were added to our electoral structure for 2029, it would have several positive impacts; namely, the increased probability of electing more qualified, experienced and capable leaders — without mandating specific qualifications or experience — by allowing all registered voters to collectively assess and decide which candidate(s) for premier and ministerial positions best represent the interests of the country.
Furthermore, political parties and independents would be required to announce which candidates are running for premier and ministers before the election, and not simply determine those positions behind closed doors in horse trading sessions after the election is over.
Under the much broader spotlight of national voting, where you must appeal to more than 20,000 voters across the country and not just 200-plus friends, family and neighbours, political parties would inherently be leveraged into presenting candidates who are well qualified and/or experienced for the specific leadership positions they are contesting.
In practical terms, this means it would be unlikely for parties to field candidates for minister of finance who lack finance experience, candidates for minister of health without a background in healthcare, or candidates for minister of education who do not have any educational experience, etc.
A candidate’s ‘pre-election plans’ for how they would lead the ministry for which they are running would have to become more robust and specific, given it is being assessed by thousands of Cayman’s voters. Vague aspirations with lack of experience or qualifications in those areas would be unlikely to cut it any longer.
Another likely byproduct of this approach would be that independent candidates who possess the requisite experience or qualifications for specific leadership roles in the executive branch would now be more likely to consider running for public office.
This is because the chances of succeeding by appealing to ‘all voters’ nationally would provide a clearer path to success (versus trying to win over a few hundred votes in a particular constituency, in which they may not even live, and to which the incumbent MP may already have a legacy stranglehold).
This would enhance candidate quality for Cayman’s elections and allow those individuals to avoid the pressure of needing to join an established political party (should they decide the party does not align with their views) for fear that, even if elected, they would have little to no power or influence to effect any meaningful change. As we can see from the coming 2025 election, the pressure for candidates to join a party to ensure they can wield decision-making powers, if elected, is compelling.
Those likely to be most resistant to such electoral reform are established political parties and legacy MPs who do not want the burden of having to field candidates that are demonstrably qualified and experienced for executive positions, and for whom the current status quo system ensures they are likely to win seats in those positions without the burden of appealing to all of Cayman’s national voting base.
Are there any democratically valid reasons why all voters in Cayman should not have the ultimate say in who their preferred leaders will be, whom they feel represent the best interests of the country?
I would argue the answer is a resounding no; ‘the people’ should decide who the premier and the ministers will be during the election, and not via back-room deals done in secret and post-election.
There are several things we can do to better evolve our electoral system to improve Cayman’s chances for better governance. This proposed approach is only part one of a multi-part approach to that end.
National, constituency and district voting for the 2029 elections will enhance the likelihood that more qualified, experienced and competent individuals will stand for elected office, and those who are elected are more likely to have the competency required for the highest positions of power.
Ultimately, this will increase our chances of successfully solving the major issues we face as a country.
As a result, the next government elected in April of 2025 should consider enacting this reform for 2029.
James E. Whittaker is the founder of Caymanomics, an emerging think tank exploring issues affecting the economic, social and environmental prosperity of the Cayman Islands.
Do you have an Election Viewpoint? Send it to news@caymannewsservice.com for consideration.
Check out the CNS Election Section interactive map to see who is running in each constituency.
See the list of candidates and their party affiliations here.
Related
Category: Viewpoint
Change writes: Every constituency has the same issue when their MP becomes a minister. It is not that they stop caring about their area, but Cabinet members have no choice but to tackle issues at national level, and that takes budget, meetings, reports, travel, conference calls, sitting with lawyers to streamline bills and laws — all […]
We trust the voters to vote for the MPs and the result of that is, as you said ”… elected officials, who are placed in the highest positions of government leadership, are often inexperienced and unqualified and, thus, largely incapable of effectively resolving Cayman’s ever-growing problems, hurting us economically, socially and environmentally while placing Cayman’s future prosperity at evermore risk.”
Should we really make the voters choose the Ministers too?
Thank you Mr. Whittaker for contributing to the critically important electoral reform debate.
The current system is clearly a failed experiment that has principally benefitted special interests and the corrupt self-serving politicians who they can place in power and control.
Some form of national election process is required, particularly in relation to those Members of Parliament who will be in Cabinet. That is a far more democratic option and the only option readily available that has a chance of limiting the power that special interests, the corrupt and the inept have over our country.
In my view, if we elect honest, intelligent and competent leaders who are motivated by public service to Cabinet they should be able to manage the assignment of Cabinet roles among those elected to Cabinet. That would be particularly true if we develop a party system based on policy priorities rather than the pursuit of personal power and/or profit.
My preference would be to have between 9 and 11 nationally elected Parliamentary representatives who will serve in Cabinet, plus 5 or 6 Parliamentary district representatives elected to represent each of the traditional districts. The district Parliamentary representatives would work with their respective district councils to ensure that the interests of all districts are served in Parliament. Legislation including budgets would be approved by majority vote in Parliament.
Hopefully those of us who are willing to preserve democracy and limit corruption in Cayman will be able to work together on a People-Initiated Referendum to achieve this objective.
In general I agree with the diagnosis of the problem we face in Cayman but I fundamentally disagree with the treatment suggested in this piece.
Yes Ministers can be ineffective, and we can at times have persons who have no business being in charge of ministries, departments and setting public policy be appointed we have seen this plenty; one only needs to look at Mckeeva or Dwayne Seymour for irrefutable confirmation of that fact.
As you correctly point out – we are never going to be able to devise a democratic system that can account for imbeciles, both candidates and voters of which there are many in Cayman and around the world. The solution to our limited pool of political representatives is not to further divide powers entrenching a Cabinet distinct from Parliament with even more areas for disputes, breakdowns and bottlenecks in the process of Government.
I especially take issue with the continued idea that the solution to our issues is more private sector thinking. Half the problem in Cayman is that the private sector is almost completely out of control whether that’s importing countless foreign workers, or their general treatment of Caymanians , their continued efforts to clear-cut, pave over and tear up anything that is not making them profits. Their endless greed driving rising cost of living while providing workers with the bare minimum they need to survive. We do not need that mindset brought to Government in an enhanced executive.
A system like the one envisioned here would be the final nail in the coffin of Parliamentary democracy – where Parliament would de facto exist as a hall where the proverbial rubber stamp is held and real power would be held in Cabinet. Where the Ministers like Premier and Finance Minister would be offices that in practice would be limited to persons with the funds to run campaigns in all areas of the islands. Where Cabinet would dismiss any criticism of their proposals based on their mandates from a national vote.
All that is not even mentioning the practical limitations of a national vote, the successful candidate in a national election would almost certainly always be from or would focus their campaigns on George Town or West Bay where the majority of eligible voters are located – under the system you are proposing other districts would likely be stuck under administrations focused even more so that currently exists on the needs and priorities of George Town and West Bay. There would nothing stopping them from, for the sake of argument – creating a landfill in Bodden Town or another Eastern District.
What happens when the budget approved by Parliament is not in line with the vision of the ‘elected’ Minister of Finance? Who has the final say in that scenario?
What happens when Parliament is split on a proposal, but the Premier wants to go in another direction and sets contrary policy from Cabinet, the Premier will simply say ‘I won a national vote for this position what right does Parliament have to defy the voters who elected me’.
What happens when there is a dispute between the Premier and the Minister of Finance who are both separately elected to their positions?
What happens when one party sweeps the national elected positions but another party controls Parliament? or conversely when certain Ministers are elected as a minority within a Cabinet as a whole with differing views?
In these proposed national positions would a candidate be required to get a majority of votes – or would we simply be handing power to persons who can get 30-40% of the vote like the old multimember constituencies with our first past the post system.
There are a great deal of problems in Cayman and changes I would argue for to address them – a national vote solves none of them and simply would be another engine spewing dysfunction into the system.