Twenty-fifth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference
23
A delegate from Trinidad and Tobago drew attention to his country's new constitution, the principal feature of which was a comprehensive set of human rights and freedoms. ovision was made also for adequate checks and balances between the legislative,
ecutive, and judicial arms of government.
The relationship between the three branches of government was causing growing concern in various parts of the Commonwealth, said a New Zealand delegate. It was fundamental to a healthy democratic system that Parliament, elected by and responsible to the people, should be the dominant institution. The oil crisis showed what happened when effective economic power, for instance, moved outside Parliament's grasp.
The peculiar characteristic of the Westminster system of government was that the Executive was only indirectly elected by the people, and, unfortunately, when combined with a "first-past-the-post" electoral system, that could mean that one political party that did not even represent the largest minority could completely monopolise Executive power. In turn, a parliament that did not represent the majority caused people to lose faith and confidence in the parliamentary system itself.
It was the delegate's personal view, and not that of his delegation, that proportional representation allowed a fairer representation of public opinion in Parliament. The future of democracy would be under threat until the Executive was answerable to a majority of the House, which, in turn, represented a majority of electors.
Canada's size, pluralistic society, and two official languages ensured a complexity of problems for any government, said a Canadian delegate. The Cabinet was made up of members of both the House of Commons and the Senate, members of the latter being appointed, not elected. Money Bills could not originate in the Senate; they could be reduced but not raised by it. The Senate had a seldom exercised power of absolute veto over all Bills; it was traditionally more of a legislative brake than a block.
There had been much discussion about the decline of Parliament-it was a perennial issue. The Executive and the Public Service were often accused of usurping powers originally assigned to Parliament. The major response to that argument was that certain functions originally assigned to Parliament might quite legitimately change as a result of adaptations to a society undergoing rapid and dramatic change through, among other things, the onslaught of technology.
The habit of regarding Parliament and the Executive as always in some kind of permanent conflict should not continue, said an Indian delegate. The atmosphere of adversary proceedings in their Parliaments had to be replaced by one of mutal respect.
There was a universally perceived imbalance in the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, he said. This was due not to the usurpation of the functions of one by the other, but, rather, to causes beyond the control of either. The explosion of knowledge and phenomenal advances in science put Parliament as a body into a position of not being able effectively to discharge its responsibilities to oversee the administration. The remedy lay in strengthening the committee system with proper staff and research support, and in strengthening members' participation by orientating new members better and providing, for them and for all MPs, seminars on procedure and parliamentary processes.
A reorientation of attitude towards civil servants was also called for. Civil servants constituted the element of continuity and provided some kind of stability for the political system. Their role was crucial when political conditions were uncertain, especially during interregnums between governments. In developing societies, their role was particularly onerous, and in the Third World, because of scarce resources, mostly trying and thankless.
The question was to determine where power actually resided, said the leader of the Jamaican delegation. Was Parliament the rubber stamp of the Executive? He, too, thought that democracy was under seige and that new ideas and changes abroad had to be considered. If the democratic process were to be broadened, where should they start? If the start were to be made with the people, at the grass roots, once a political party had conceptualised its philosophy, how did it ensure that Parliament understood? How was implementation achieved and accountability ensured?
If a party had a new concept, or a different party were elected, it was still possible to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.