Changing Governments

May 09, 2010 Editorial

A few months ago, a fierce debate raged in the pages of this newspaper on the circumstances surrounding the formation of the PNC-UF coalition government in December 1964. Dr Prem Misir contended: “The PPP secured the most votes and it was the only Party that increased its percentage share of the votes over the 1961 election.
However, the Governor violated British conventions that would allow Dr. Cheddi Jagan to form the government as the leader of the Party with the majority of votes. Instead, the Governor, through a constitutional amendment, called on Mr. Burnham of the People’s National Congress (PNC) to establish a government with the assistance of the UF (United Force), creating the short-lived PNC-UF Coalition.”
Mr Rashleigh Jackson, ex-Foreign Affairs Minister, retorted that “…there was no constitutional amendment… My understanding is that the Governor had the authority to invite to form the government the person who in his judgment was likely to garner the support of a majority of the members of the Legislature.
The Governor’s judgment could be questioned but I doubt that his authority could be. Eminent jurist, Mr Brynmor Pollard, S.C. clarified that there was no “constitutional amendment” but “an Order by Her Majesty the Queen in Council on 14th December 1964. The Order provided for the vacation of the office of the Premier whenever he was informed by the Governor that the latter was about to reappoint him or to appoint another person as Premier.”
This correction, however, did not vitiate the gravamen of Dr Misir’s contention that “the Governor violated British conventions” in proceeding as he did.
Mr Pollard appeared to accept the legitimacy of the Governor’s refusal to accept Dr Jagan’s argument to be given the opportunity to form the government since he judged the latter as having a “tenuous basis”.
The columnist, Peeping Tom, accepted that there had been a violation of “British conventions” and offered a rationale: “Had the convention been followed there would have however been a natural outcome. That outcome would have been that the PNC along with the United Force would have moved a no-confidence motion in the PPP government. The motion would have been successful since the UF and the PNC would have combined to be the majority in the legislature.
Convention would then dictate that the PPP remove itself from office or call fresh elections. This latter possibility is no doubt what the Governor was trying to avoid since there was no certainty that the PNC would win a majority in fresh elections.”
Matters unfolding after the May 6 British elections have shed some light on our local debate. As with our December 1964 elections, the British results have produced no single party with an outright majority of seats: Conservative – 306, Labour – 258, Liberals – 57, Others – 28.
Even before the elections, Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University blunted asserted the British convention: “Constitutionally, it is the House of Commons, not the voters, that chooses the prime minister. An incumbent leader, therefore, is entitled to meet parliament even if his opponents have won an overall majority.
(Under similar circumstances) in 1886 and 1892, Lord Salisbury, the Conservative leader, met parliament; so did Stanley Baldwin in 1924. They were, in each case, voted down. In 1929, by contrast with 1924, Baldwin resigned without meeting parliament. In March 1974, Edward Heath sought coalition with the Liberals and with some of the Ulster Unionists. When that failed, he resigned, although he was constitutionally entitled to test his strength in parliament.
He predicted, “Were the 2010 general election to yield a hung parliament, Gordon Brown, like Heath, would be constitutionally entitled to seek coalition; or he could meet parliament as the head of a minority government and challenge the other parties to vote him down.” It is this scenario that is unfolding in Britain today.
It would appear that Dr. Misir was correct after all – in 1964 the British conventions were violated. As the Peeper pointed out, to do otherwise might have dashed their plans. Why else would they have needed an Order-in-Council, under the Queen’s prerogative, to give the Governor the authority to unilaterally demand the incumbent Premier, Dr Jagan’s resignation from office?

Latest News

Changing Governments

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

GPF arrests Presidential Guards by 48 runs as cricket action gets...

Superbet supports One Guyana 3×3 Quest

FIDE Master Drayton outclasses strong competition...

Wiltshire, Chris dominoes tourney set for March

Houston Sec’, New Central, Saints sent packing

Charles’ all-round performance helps EBDCA U23...

Features/Columnists

No immigrant should feel safe in America today

If Guyana’s President Ali is the “Zelensky of the Caribbean”, who is the Putin?

From Bharrat, the Blusterer to Howard, the Coward

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Changing Governments

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 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 […]