The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

We must appreciate that in our small country, we have much to learn to and even more to experience.

In the past 49 years, we have only seen three Prime Ministers and four leadership races which led to a change in leader within one of the two major political parties. As a result, it is safe to say that we have not fully explored the limited possibilities of succession of a PM in the Westminster system.

Perhaps it may be best to consider these possibilities:

1. The PM leads his Party into the general election and his party loses. This effectively makes him the Leader of Opposition, but traditionally, such a loss is taken as a direct message from the people that they no longer have any confidence in the PM’s leadership. As a result, that person would ideally step down as leader, allowing for a new leader of the Party to be elected with the view that they will become the Leader of Opposition and lead the Party into the next general election.

This is what happened in the UK in 2010 when Gordon Brown and the Labour Party lost to David Cameron and the Conservatives. After it was clear that the Labour Party would not remain as the governing party, Gordon Brown, in one speech, both conceded and resigned as leader of the Party. Hubert Ingraham did the same thing in 2012. The issue with this approach is that there is no guarantee that the outgoing PM will accept the election results as a vote of no confidence in their leadership by the majority, as seen in 2007 when the PLP was defeated and outgoing PM Christie remained as leader of the Party.

2. The PM is challenged and defeated during his term. In the Westminster system, such an outcome usually leads to an early election being called, because it is understood that the new leader of the governing Party does not have the mandate of the people. Therefore, it is only fair in a democratic system that the people be given an opportunity to vote for or against this Party with a new leader at the helm.

3. There is a transition of leadership where the PM indicates that he will NOT lead the Party into or after the next general election. This is the simplest option and perhaps the most preferred. The Party has a convention to determine who the new leader will be, and that new leader prepares to lead the Party into the next general election while the PM has the opportunity to complete his full term. This is the concept of a co-leader or leader elect.

While it is not completely unconventional for a PM to resign either at the beginning of their term or midway into their term, we have to appreciate the implications this would have.

A Party wins an election with one leader who is given the mandate of the people, then changes leadership, forcing the people to deal with country leadership that they did not vote for or give a mandate to. It is easy to discredit this argument from a theoretical standpoint by stating that the PM is the first amongst equals and that we do not vote for a leader of the country, rather we vote for representatives who will make up the leadership of the country. While this may be true in theory, we are fully aware that in The Bahamas, as with many other countries, people vote for Party and leadership more so than a representative. We have seen in recent events that David Cameron stepped down as PM only one year into his term, which has led to a public outcry for an early election to be called to allow the people to decide who they wish to have lead their country.

Given the above, it is rather baffling that some commentators have implied that Sears’ bid for leadership is either untimely due to its proximity to the next general election, or complicated by the fact that he is not a Member of Parliament. In the Westminster system, there is perhaps no better time, almost a year before general elections, to make a bid for leadership. It allows the people to vote for the Party with such leadership.

As it relates to his not being in parliament, this allows for the concept of a co-leader or leader elect mentioned in option 3, where the new leader can focus on preparing the Party for a general election while the incumbent PM can complete the last few months of his term. The resolution of the Baha Mar project, for example, requires the full-time and careful attention of the PM. Therefore, the concept of a co-leader or leader elect will achieve an orderly succession of the PLP, serve the public interest and facilitate the PLP’s preparation of the next general elections.

Once an election is called, the fact that Sears is not an MP will be a non-issue, as he will be among the others fighting to be elected.

The Bahamas is in need of a transition in leadership. Alfred Sears just may have figured this out right after all!

MR DEMOCRAT

Nassau,

August 11, 2016.