Commentary On Winn Fm On Term Limits - 12 April 2011

The main focus of this address will be term limits that is the restriction by law of the time in which persons elected to public office can hold such office. To put the issue in context I must begin with a brief discussion on our form of Government. St. Kitts-Nevis is meant to be a constitutional democracy. The main ingredients of this type of system are a Constitution which is the supreme law, the election by the people of its representatives by free and fair elections, controls on the exercise of power by political  leaders and the existence of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and protected by an independent judiciary. We clearly in St. Kitts-Nevis enjoy the first and fourth of these ingredients but the extent of the second and third ingredients that is, the election by the people of its representatives by free and fair elections, and controls on the exercise of power, is highly questionable.

Our system is based on the Westminster model of the separation of powers. That system is meant to give separate powers to the executive (that is the Prime Minister and Ministers of Government), the legislature (that is the National Assembly) and the judiciary (that is the Court system). The theory is that by widening the power base in that way there will be a balance of power between the three branches. This system as a whole does not work fully in our case because the executive and the legislature are  controlled by the same people and the Courts are the only truly separate branch. Instead we have what Professor Simeon MacIntosh calls “elective dictatorship”, a characterisation with which I agree.

Sir Fred Phillips (of blessed memory) who headed two constitutional reform bodies which reported on and recommended changes to our Constitution and whose views of constitutional law are widely respected regionally and internationally said:- 

“We must never forget that in small communities such as Caribbean States, it is easy for the Prime Minister wielding an all pervasive influence, to manipulate almost everything and everybody, especially since, in most territories, he (or she) is the appointing authority in respect of almost every person on every board operating in the public domain”.  

It is also worthy of note that we have none of the other traditional features of a constitutional democracy to promote accountability of the executive. We have no Freedom of Information legislation, no Integrity in Public Life legislation, no Campaign Finance legislation, no legislation regulating Government tendering or purchasing of goods and services, not even legislation requiring Government to publish its policies.

In the face of these inadequacies in our system the media (often called the “fourth estate”) plays a critical role by ferreting out information from Government, by providing checks on the abuse of executive power and by facilitating the exercise by the community of its fundamental right of free speech. Advances in technology facilitate the dissemination of information and the right of free speech, but they also provide a means for those who seek to manipulate public opinion to disseminate their spin and  distortions. We should not therefore take the right of free speech for granted. If we do not practice it vigorously we could lose it.

Against the imbalance of which I spoke and the opportunity for abuse provided by our system it is clearly important that we engage in discussion as to whether additional measures are required to redress the imbalance. One such measure is term limits. I will take a brief look at the history of term limits and their prevalence in today’s world. The ancient Greeks had term limits in their system of governance 2,700 years ago. The Romans had them around the time of Christ. A large number of modern democracies have them. Two thirds of sub-Saharan African countries have them. Almost all of Latin America does as well. Venezuela is an exception to which I will return. A large number of Asian countries have them. They are not however common in Europe nor in the Commonwealth Caribbean. The United States restricts its President to two terms but does not limit terms of Representatives and Senators in its Congress.

Let’s look at the arguments for and against term limits. The main argument against them is that voters are deprived of their right to elect whomsoever they want to public office. It is also argued that removing longer serving politicians from office can result in the election of inexperienced politicians. Another argument is that when an elected politician is coming to the end of his term and cannot seek re-election he does not have to heed the concerns of his constituents and can use his power to set himself up in the future whereas if he had to face the electorate he would have to worry about how voters think. It is also argued that you do not necessarily get better leaders by rotating them. 

The main arguments in favour of term limits are:- 

- they prevent persons in power from using that power to remain in office indefinitely;  

- they make room for fresh candidates, new faces, and encourage participation in the process; 

- they deter politicians from making choices solely to prolong their career; and

- they recognize the negative impact which power can have on human nature.

I used to think, when I was young and idealistic, that term limits were not necessary because no one would want to subject himself for too long to the pressures of political power. It is interesting that the framers of the US Constitution seem to have held that view because the term limitation on the US President was only imposed in 1951. I have, after 50 years of watching our democracy, changed my mind principally on the basis of the last argument that I recited in favor of term limits that is they recognize the negative impact which power can have on human nature. While the world has in physical conditions advanced in the 2700 years since the Greeks imposed term limits, human nature has remained the same. 

I said that term limits are rare in Commonwealth countries. That is because we inherited the British system which does not impose term limits. The issue is however being hotly debated in our region, particularly among our youth. It featured in the debate in St. Vincent on constitutional reform which failed in a referendum. Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves expressed the view that term limitations deprive Caribbean people of quality lenders who he said are already scarce in the region. He has a habit of poking his nose into the local politics of other islands. I don’t know what makes him an authority on the capacity of Kittitians and Nevisians to govern themselves. I would say to him that his view may be true in relation to his country but he is not qualified to speak for us. That type of attitude and the megalomaniac delusion demonstrated by Chavez in Venezuela (who managed to remove term limits from the Venezuela constitution to give himself power for life) further harden my view in favour of term limits.  

I think that the main argument against them, that they are undemocratic in preventing the people from electing who they want for as long as they want, is answered by the fact that our Constitution already prevents the people from doing so. For example dual citizens cannot run for public office. We also have the “Bryant” provision which rules out some citizens. So there are already limitations far more unreasonable than term limits. When we balance the danger they protect us from against the right they deprive I think the deprivation is justifiable.  

I think that in considering this issue we also need to look at the pecularities of our system. As I said we do not have a true separation of powers. We have an office of Prime Minister which, to quote Sir Fred, can be easily used by any holder to manipulate almost everything and everybody. We do not have the checks and balances that legislation on Freedom of Information, Integrity in Public Life, and Campaign  Finance provide in many other democracies. And we have a political tribalism that promotes hatred and the one-sided exercise of political power, that aggrandizes and almost defies politicians and demonises others. We have an entitlements mentality which says that Government must provide for all our desires, the result of which is that, given its financial limitations, Government cannot satisfy everyone’s needs and therefore favours some over others. We have a country motto of “Country above Self”

but in practice it is “Party above all else”. This form of politics, which none of our leaders past or present has tried to change, makes it extremely difficult for a leader to provide balanced governance for a long period of time, no matter how idealistic he or she may have been when he or she began in politics. It encourages instead an autocratic and self-centered application of power which degrades the objectivity of a politician who is in it for too long.  

In my opinion there should be a limit of four terms (a maximum of 20 years) for elected representatives in the National Assembly; subject to that limitation, a limit of three terms (a maximum of 15 years) for Prime Minister; and two terms (a maximum of 10 years) for non-elected Senators.

The introduction of term limits would require an amendment to the Constitution. The clauses which have to be changed are not entrenched clauses which means that a referendum would not be necessary. A vote of two thirds, that is 8 elected representatives of the 11 in the National Assembly, could bring about the changes.