The internal party elections of the UNC last weekend completed a cycle of internal party elections between 2014 and 2015. For the PNM, it was their first time holding such elections last year having moved from the delegate system to direct elections by the party membership.
For the UNC, it was their fifth internal election. Their first one in 2001 was a bruising affair, while their second election, which was overdue and held in 2005, saw further problems arise when Basdeo Panday handed the leadership of the party to Winston Dookeran while he stood unopposed for the chairmanship of the party. The major outcome of such an arrangement was the fact that Panday refused to cede the post of Leader of the Opposition to Dookeran and kept it based on the support of the majority of opposition MPs who preferred him to Dookeran for this position.
It was at that point that a major philosophical issue arose, quite apart from the controversy that it generated. The internal party elections are designed to bring mass democracy to political parties by mobilising their supporters to choose their political leaders and national executives. However, there is no connection to the party’s representation in the Parliament as there is no guarantee that the individual MPs, who either support or do not support the Government, will express their individual preferences in accordance with the wishes of their party electorate.
For example, based on the provisions of Sections 49A and 83 of our Constitution, it is possible that the leader of the party with the authority to seek the termination of office of any MP who was elected on the ticket of that party and the Leader of the Opposition could be two completely different people. This was the case between 2005 and 2006 when Winston Dookeran held the Section 49A office and Basdeo Panday held the Section 83 office.
The issue arose again in January 2010, for a short period when Kamla Persad-Bissessar won the Section 49A office and Basdeo Panday held the Section 83 office. It was only after Roodal Moonilal and Tim Gopeesingh shifted their loyalty from Panday to Persad-Bissessar one month after the UNC internal elections that the two offices were held by Persad-Bissessar.
In September 2006, Dookeran resigned and formed the COP, while in May 2010 Patrick Manning called a snap election which handed the keys to Whitehall over to Persad-Bissessar very soon after her assumption of both offices.
On the other hand, the provisions of Section 49A are such that the crossing-the-floor provisions can only be effected against an MP for expulsion or resignation from their party, if the party leader is also an MP.
In the just-concluded UNC internal elections, Vasant Bharath would not have qualified to effect party discipline in this way if he had won the position of political leader. Likewise, Penelope Beckles-Robinson faced the same situation last year when she challenged Keith Rowley for leadership of the PNM. The same situation arose in January 1987 when Dr Aeneas Wills challenged Patrick Manning for leadership of the PNM after the resignation of George Chambers in December 1986 after he lost his seat in the general election.
Wills’ challenge was made under the delegate system, while Patrick Manning had been appointed Leader of the Opposition by President Ellis Clarke over Morris Marshall and Muriel Donawa-Mc Davidson. Manning was seeking to harmonise his position as Leader of the Opposition by becoming political leader of the PNM.
The UNC internal elections have always been held on a delayed basis since 2001 (2005, 2010 and 2015), except for the 2012 elections for the National Executive which were held in accordance with the two-year time frame for those elections. The political leader is supposed to be elected every three years.
The party delayed its 2013 and 2014 internal elections to undertake constitutional reform in the party. Those deliberations will probably be resumed by the new executive. The fundamental issue that they may have to consider is the harmonisation of the purpose of the internal elections with the offices of Leader of the Opposition and of Prime Minister under the party and national constitutions.
Parties have to consider the provisions of Sections 76 (the Prime Minister) and Section 83 (the Leader of the Opposition) in relation to section 49A (the leader of the party in the House of Representatives).
It is quite possible that at any one time four different people could hold these offices, namely (i) an MP who is Prime Minister by virtue of commanding the support of a majority of MPs but is not leader of his/her party; (ii) the leader of the party that has a majority of MPs who is not Prime Minister; (iii) an MP who is Leader of the Opposition who commands the support of the majority of MPs who do not support the government but is not leader of his/her party; and, (iv) an MP who is the leader of the largest opposition party one of whose MPs is already Leader of the Opposition.
The implications for party discipline and policy are paramount.