A role for the opposition in Caricom?
Editorial
Stabroek News
May 19, 2004
Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer who won in a landslide the general election in Antigua and Barbuda two months ago has not been slow in making a mark in Caricom. While opening a meeting of the Caricom Summit Bureau on May 4 in his capital city, St John's he called upon Caricom to give recognition to the region's duly elected opposition leaders (SN May 6).
Prime Minister Spencer's call was clearly motivated by his deep feelings of exclusion during his decade and a half in opposition. It will be recalled that similarly Dr Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines when he was himself the new kid on the block had declared that a Prime Minister had altogether too much power. However there has not been any report since then of proposals for constitutional reform in St Vincent. PM Gonsalves has in fact given his major attention to the problems of governance in Caricom.
Spencer contends that Caricom's seemingly studied aloofness from issues of governance within member states, appears to make concessions only when crises ignite. Describing the situation in a phrase with a Churchillian ring to it, as a 'paradox within a dilemma,' he stated that when he was opposition leader he never received responses to numerous communications that were despatched to the regional body.
The complaint is a fair critique of Caricom. Caricom at invitation in recent years has mediated in political conflicts in Guyana (the Herdmanston Agreement) in St Vincent and the Grenadines, and more recently, and in this latter case without success, in Haiti. Moreover it should be recalled that for nearly three decades Caricom leaders turned a blind eye to well documented electoral irregularities in Guyana.
The question of the role of the opposition goes in particular to the heart of the problem of the development of essential new Caricom institutions. In Trinidad and Tobago the opposition United National Congress (UNC) has refused to support a necessary constitutional amendment which would enable the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to operate in Trinidad and Tobago, unless there is an undertaking for wider constitutional reform. In Jamaica, the opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) took court action against the decision of government to enact legislation to bring in the CCJ. On losing such court action the JLP almost at once issued a strong statement urging that Jamaica should not join the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME). In these instances it may well be the case that Caricom projects are being held hostage to domestic conflicts. Indeed it may well be the case that the slow pace in the implementation of decisions made by the Summit and other Caricom bodies is due precisely to the fact that governments must steadily look over their shoulders at what political capital the opposition might make of Caricom issues.
Caricom Heads of Governments are thus sensitive to the role of the opposition. In the Rosehall Declaration on regional governance, adopted by the Caricom Summit in Montego Bay in July 2003, they "resolved to create opportunities for the political opposition in Member States to play a more active role in the development of the Community within a framework of respect for democratic principles," and in this context called upon the opposition parties to fully embrace those opportunities.
Yet despite the above-quoted Summit call in the Rosehall Declaration, it is doubtful whether Heads of Government would be willing to devise a way to facilitate opposition participation in a Summit. PM Spencer has drawn attention to the fact that Industry, Commerce and Labour representatives participate in Caricom Summits. This is only partly true. The Caribbean Association of Industry and Commerce (CAIC) and the Caribbean Congress of Labour (CCL) have from time to time been invited to participate only in the discussion on agenda items dealing with subjects in which they have specific interests. By contrast an opposition, like a government, has a "universal" interest not a sectoral interest. The opposition therefore in all likelihood expects to participate in the whole meeting including the caucus. Nor are governments likely to welcome the opposition into discussions at a Summit on items on which the opposition is known to disagree as for example, inviting Mr Panday and Mr Seaga to participate in discussions on the CCJ.
In fact Caricom Heads of Government when they considered the role of the opposition at their Eleventh Inter-sessional meeting in St Kitts and Nevis in March last year, agreed that the Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (ACCP) "was an appropriate constitution through which opposition leaders would be able to meet and discuss issues critical to the Region's development". It is the case that opposition parliamentarians have been included in national delegations to meetings of the ACCP.
But while the decision of the Heads sounds good, on analysis this should be seen for what it is, an attempt to kick the problem sideways. In practice the ACCP has never been taken seriously by governments. Since its establishment ten years ago in 1994 the assembly has only met three times in Barbados in 1996, Grenada in 1999 and Belize in 2000. It is understood that plans are being made to hold the next meeting in St Lucia.
Fundamental to the weakness of the ACCP is that it was deliberately conceived in a way to ensure that it could not in any way challenge the position of national governments and parliaments. Unlike the European Parliament which has steadily attracted to itself additional powers until it is now one of the triad of the powerful institutions which run the EU (the other two being the Council of Heads of Government and the EU Commission) the founding principles of the ACCP ensure that it will always be a secondary institution. The ACCP is constituted as a deliberative forum, it has no legislative or decision-making powers. It is limited to making recommendations on any matter within the scope of the objectives of Caricom, to the Summit, or any of the institutions of Caricom. There is no provision within Caricom for the funding of the ACCP, one of the main reasons why it has been to date a virtual non-starter. Moreover, governments have shown little interest in proposing items for its agenda or in hosting meetings.
In the now much quoted but little implemented Rosehall Declaration on Regional Governance adopted by the Caricom Summit last year July in Jamaica, the Heads of Government called for "the strengthening of the role of the ACCP in the enhancement of regional integration". In keeping with this decision a technical sub-group under the Chairmanship of Professor Denis Benn, was established to recommend steps for improving the functions and effectiveness of the ACCP. It is expected that the findings of this group will be considered at the forthcoming Summit in July in Grenada.
One way of meeting the concerns of PM Spencer about the role of the opposition in Caricom (not proposed by the sub-group) may be for an annual meeting of the ACCP to be held immediately before the Summit, as is the practice with major institutions of Caricom (COTED, COFCOR etc.). The ACCP could then identify a delegation to present its recommendations directly to the Summit.
It is certain that the development of Caricom requires reasonable consensus in which the opposition participates within member states on major Caricom issues. It also seems clear that such consensus is more likely to be reached, not at meetings of regional institutions, but within national institutions and in particular within national parliaments, in which the leader of the opposition is accorded a special role.
Thumbing through some recent political writings, it turns out that there are few references to the opposition, whose role remains a largely unresearched field.
The Caricom relationship stands somewhere between the national and international, rather like an extended family relationship. Consequently, is there not the strongest cause for keeping national parliaments routinely informed on Caricom developments? Would it not have been fitting, for example, for Government to make a statement before parliament, on Caricom's position on Haiti, or on progress in the CSME, or to present a report on the major conclusions of meetings of the Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED), or the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFOR).
It is only when an issue erupts as for example the failure of Member States to honour their commitments on the rice market that there is an almost grudging official explanation. Surely on all such issues Parliament is entitled to information and explanation. The recognition of the role of the opposition in Caricom must begin at home, in each member state.