Editorial: The subordination of Parliament

There can be no disputing the fact that the institution of Parliament plays a significant role in the Westminster system of governance that we purport to follow locally. Indeed, our supreme law recognises this at section 48 where it provides - “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Barbados”.

It is not surprising therefore that much popular concern was expressed earlier this year when the Parliament was dissolved and yet, as is constitutionally proper, the existing Cabinet continued to administer the affairs of state.

We get the distinct impression that much of this consternation was owed not only to the delay in naming a date for the then much anticipated general election but also to the extension of Cabinet government in the absence of a sitting Parliament, a state of affairs seemingly in conflict with the constitutional stipulation at section 64 (2) that “the Cabinet shall be the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the government of Barbados and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament”.

Clearly, in the absence of a Parliament, there would be no entity to which the long Cabinet could, or would, be collectively responsible, a circumstance ostensibly at variance with the imperative of the aforementioned provision.

It will be recalled that the outcome of that general election, when it was took place, was a clean sweep of all the parliamentary seats at stake by the currently governing Barbados Labour Party administration. Consequent on that achievement, the administration went on to appoint the largest Cabinet in the history of local Cabinet government and one of the most numerous proportionately in the hemisphere.

Given the current state of the economy and the relatively substantial remuneration of a Cabinet Minister, this phenomenon naturally raised some concern, particularly among opposition forces. However, the thrust of the counter argument has focused on the apparently prodigal nature of this arrangement in a context of limited financial resources especially with the imminent prospect of a reduced public sector at the initiative of the same administration.

Indeed, only on Monday, in an item in The Barbados Advocate, the Democratic Labour Party is reported as calling into question the size and cost of the current Cabinet. In the statement attributed generally to the party, after drawing reference to the duplication of ministerial portfolios and additional staff, it concludes, “Overlapping areas of ministerial responsibility create [] the type of inefficiency that … causes significant financial costs and retardation of business processes, never min the strain on the public purse…”

However, apparently no one has sought so far to draw reference to the implications of such a large Cabinet to the constitutional mandate of collective responsibility to parliament. If we are to be true to our motto, we must once more express misgiving at a state of affairs where, given the number of Cabinet ministers, it may, merely by its collective vote, effectively overrule any possible alternative from the floor of the House. Of course, this reality is partly owed to the outcome of the polls that ensured that there would not be a parliamentary party opposition for at least the next five years.
In such a scenario, the appointment of so many members of Cabinet appears to be unnecessary and constitutionally dubious overkill. Unnecessary; because there would be little serious opposition anticipated to cabinet policy in any event, and constitutionally dubious; because Cabinet is thereby essentially answering to itself.