PRINCIPLES, CONVENTIONS AND PRACTICE GUIDING EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING

Nov 23, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

It is timely to revisit important principles, conventions and practices involved in the relationship between a Head of State and his ministers within a Westminster political system such as what obtains in Guyana.

A defining feature of a Westminster political system is usually the separation between the Head of State and the Head of Government. While Guyana has an Executive Presidency, which makes the Head of State, the President, also the Head of Government, our political system, our parliamentary system and the conventions and traditions that guide the work of Cabinet have not departed from the Westminster model. What Guyana possesses is an Executive Presidency implanted on a Westminster political model.

The relationship between the members of Cabinet and the President and the practices of government are circumscribed by the traditions and conventions which have become a settled feature of the Westminster model, as well as the legal relationships established under our own Constitution.

Article 106(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Guyana provides for a Cabinet which shall consist of the President, the Prime Minister, the Vice-Presidents, and such other Ministers as may be appointed to it by the President, and says that the Cabinet shall aid and advise the President in the general direction and control of the Government and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament.

The Constitution of Guyana also provides for the President to assign specific portfolios and responsibilities to ministers.

There is no provision in the Constitution for ministers to be advisers to the President; it is Cabinet as a collective that advises.

Since the President has the prerogative of assigning duties and responsibilities to Ministers, there is also an inherent right which must be respected.

Regardless if the President is predisposed to receiving advice which conflicts with the President’s own views, there is a right of the President to determine whether someone should be part of the Cabinet.

Thus, regardless of the advice a President receives, the President is within his right to seek a cohesive team of ministers to form the Cabinet.

This right, however, does not imply that there should not be differences of opinion. Within any Cabinet, there is bound to be a divergence of views on many subjects.

It could hardly be a worthwhile deliberative body if such differences do not exist, and such differences are healthy for any cabinet under any political system, democratic or authoritarian.

However, there is no principle that states that a minister should not be part of a government if he does not agree with the President on a particular matter. If that is the case, then there is no need for a Cabinet.

Clearly of course, in the workings of a government, a minister may proffer advice to the President who is free to accept or dismiss that advice.

However, by convention, once an executive decision is taken, the principle of collective co-responsibility kicks in.

Under this principle, enshrined through the centuries as a convention, regardless of the personal opinions of ministers, they are obligated to publicly support an executive decision.

If, however, they find it unconscionable to support such a decision, they are free to publicly dissociate from this decision and in this instance, to submit their resignations.

The principle of collective co-responsibility thus binds a minister to support a decision which he or she may not personally agree with.

And this is why sometimes there must be public sympathy for ministers who are forced to defend decisions that they may not agree with.

The convention of collective co-responsibility dictates that they cannot distance themselves from any decision of the Executive.

Executive authority in Guyana is vested in the President. The President is all-powerful in this respect. But ministers are not rubber stamps nor should they allow themselves to be treated as mere instruments of Executive Authority.

Since they are accountable to Parliament for the performance of their offices, they should, as is dictated by convention, be bold and courageous enough to step down, resign or accept being fired where they feel strongly over differences that may exist between their own views and that of the President.

Latest News

PRINCIPLES, CONVENTIONS AND PRACTICE GUIDING EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 31st, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Twin tons from Anderson, Imlach steer Eagles back on course

Race for quarterfinal spots commence today at MoE...

Marsh sets up Lucknow’s comfortable win...

‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest tips off today

Saints and GTI dominate as YBG Georgetown...

Carty misses ton, Hamilton (80) sets up tense...

Features/Columnists

The One-Man Republic

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Polls – what they say, where I stand

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

PRINCIPLES, CONVENTIONS AND PRACTICE GUIDING EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 31st, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]