EDITORIAL Third term
In 2009, a mysterious campaign got underway to elect then President Bharrat Jagdeo to a third term. The election was due in 2011, and Mr Jagdeo was barred from standing as a presidential candidate for the PPP because the Constitution limited presidents to two terms, which he would have already served in full by that time.
The two-term limit, as it is called, was an amendment originally introduced at the instigation of the PPP, which the Constitution Reform Commission chaired by Mr Ralph Ramkarran took on board. It was passed by a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly in 2001, with the full support of the PNC.
The campaign in 2009, characterized by billboards, flyers, buttons and the like, was an anonymous one; that is to say none of the members of the pressure group ever identified themselves. As such, it operated from a very insecure base, and its position was not helped by the fact that Mr Donald Ramotar, the then General Secretary of the PPP condemned the billboards, because, he said, they did not reflect the party’s position on the matter.
Both at that time, and in the five or so years which succeeded it, Mr Jagdeo was in bashful mode, and assured the media whenever asked, that he had no interest in serving again as president, and in fact was not seeking any government office. During Mr Ramotar’s sojourn in the presidency between 2011 and 2015 Mr Jagdeo appeared to be reasonably well occupied with his international commitments; however, some months before the 2015 election, Mr Cedrick Richardson, a private individual who was not known in the political firmament, brought a case in court challenging the two-term limit.
The restriction on the number of presidential terms had been created by amendments to Article 90 of the Constitution, and as we reported, Mr Richardson deemed it as “unconstitutionally curtailing and restricting” to his sovereign and democratic rights and freedom as a qualified elector not to be permitted “to elect the person of former president Bharrat Jagdeo” as executive president.
There is no argument that in its genesis this is all about Mr Jagdeo being allowed to run for a third term; the question would not have arisen otherwise, as he is the only former president who qualifies in this category, and it would not have occurred to anyone to challenge the legality of Article 90 in an abstract context. One might have thought, however, that since over the years Mr Jagdeo has been so insistent about his lack of interest in the executive presidency, it would have caused the enthusiasts who have campaigned for him in this regard nonetheless ‒ even investing money in the exercise ‒ to confer with the gentleman in question about his intentions. Mr Richardson too, who brought the court case, was not deflected by Mr Jagdeo’s demurrals.
As everyone is fully aware, former Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang handed down a ruling in 2015 that the two-term limit was unconstitutional, and Attorney General Basil Williams and former Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman appealed the judgement. As everyone is also aware, the week before last, the Appeal Court comprising three judges – Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh, Justice B S Roy and Chief Justice (ag) Yonette CummingsEdwards – upheld Justice Chang’s ruling by a majority decision, with Chief Justice (ag) Cummings-Edwards dissenting.
The legal niceties of the case have received a great deal of exposure, and suffice it to say here that the matter will be heard by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). However, it is now even more a matter of interest in this new situation to know first, how the PPP stands in this matter, and secondly, whether Mr Jagdeo’s own public position has changed. As far as the first of these questions is concerned, former President Ramotar told this newspaper that PPP support for term limits had not changed.
And as for Mr Jagdeo, he was evasive on the matter when asked about it at a press conference last Monday: the PPP had not decided on a presidential candidate, he told reporters. It has to be remarked that Mr Jagdeo won the election for General Secretary of the PPP last December, and in a Leninist/Stalinist party the General Secretary is the leader of the party, and by implication, therefore, is likely to be the presidential candidate. (Mr Clement Rohee was not the candidate in 2015, but then Mr Ramotar was a sitting president.)
It is difficult to see why Mr Jagdeo should have wanted the post of General Secretary unless he entertained some hope of the presidency again. (As things stand he is Leader of the Opposition.) Furthermore, while Mr Ramotar’s position might be the traditional PPP one, given that Mr Jagdeo won the election for the General Secretary’s post quite comfortably, he may not be mistaken in believing he can corral enough support within the party for him to make a third-term run.
That, of course, would be contingent on the CCJ upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, and one cannot foretell its decision. However it decides, however, the general principle should be that executive presidents should be subject to term limits. This has been written into several constitutions on this continent, not to mention the United States, of course, and the attempts by one or two leaders to get them overturned have mostly not met with success, even in the case of populist leaders like Bolivia’s Evo Morales.
The reasons are obvious to most people: power becomes institutionalized in the hands of one person if it is left there for too long, and an autocratic trend becomes a very real danger. No one needs to be told that that is to be avoided at all costs in a democracy. As it is, Mr Jagdeo has enjoyed more than two terms in power, in so far as he completed Mrs Jagan’s term of office before he embarked on his two full terms. On the other side of the fence, Mr Desmond Hoyte when he was alive, and the PNC in general have always agreed with the PPP as far as this subject is concerned, and they will not change their position, especially when Mr Jagdeo is involved.
Even if term limits are desirable, what happens if the CCJ upholds the decision of our Court of Appeal? Mr Ralph Ramkarran, who as noted earlier had a great deal to do with this matter during the period of constitutional reform, suggested last week that a referendum should be held. Since, as he acknowledged, this is an expensive undertaking he proposed piggy-backing it on the local government elections of 2019, and including other reforms at the same time.
Before the government embarked on such an exercise, however, it would have to be sure it could win. Mr Ramotar told this newspaper, for example, that although, as mentioned above, PPP support for term limits had not changed, he was not sure of the party’s position on a referendum. If the CCJ position was favourable to him, would Mr Jagdeo work on garnering sufficient support within the party to allow him to be a presidential candidate? And if the government thought itself secure enough to go to a referendum, could the General Secretary influence enough members of the PPP constituency to deny the administration a majority? In short, in such circumstances, how solid would the traditional position of the party be on term limits?