Revisiting the Cummingsburg Accord

Jun 07, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) created something of a political miracle. Within just three months, the coalition was able to put together an effective campaign that outwitted and outspent the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) and won the 2015 General and Regional  Elections.
This was no easy feat. For a coalition so young to have coordinated such a cohesive campaign, and for it to have defeated the powerful, PPPC, which knows how to win elections (or so it thought), and which had been in power for the last twenty-three years, was quite a feat, perhaps even, the greatest political victory ever achieved in this country.
It really is to the credit of the coalition parties that they were able, in so short a time, to do this. But it now does seem as if all the attention was paid towards winning the elections and not much attention was paid to how the coalition would operate after victory would have been achieved.
The Cummingsburg Accord strongly suggests that there was to be a sharing of political power and responsibility.  The Agreement provides for some amount of Executive authority to be delegated to the Prime Minister.
The public’s reading of that agreement is that it is the Prime Minister that is supposed to be responsible for internal affairs, with the President being responsible for appointments of constitutional agencies and commissions.
The Presidency was also vested with the responsibility for foreign affairs, the signing of international treaties and, defence. The President in turn was supposed to delegate responsibilities for domestic national affairs and the chairing of Cabinet to the Prime Minister.  Also, the Prime Minister was supposed to be responsible for making recommendations for the appointment of Ministers.
This arrangement, it was no doubt felt, would have provided comfort to AFC supporters and to the disgruntled supporters of the PPPC, thus allowing them to lend their votes to the coalition.
It did seem to work during the campaign. One of the big surprises of the elections was that the PPPC was unable to drive a wedge between the AFC supporters and APNU. It had long been felt that so long as the AFC joined with APNU, that the PPPC would exploit this and say to their supporters that a vote for the AFC was a vote for the PNCR.
That message, if it was made, did not get through and the miracle of the election campaign was that the AFC was able to hold its own support base and deliver more than 10% of the votes cast to the coalition, thus assuring victory.
There are some forces who are attempting to argue otherwise and to suggest that it was really APNU that delivered the victory. But if you look at the election results, you would notice that apart from the interior regions, the coalition votes in certain strongholds of the PPP were just as good as what the AFC got in the 2011 elections.
Prior to those elections, the AFC was never confident that if it had joined with APNU, they could have collectively won the 2015 elections. The AFC therefore earned its stripes and played its part in the victory.
Once the victory was achieved, however, it did seem, at least to the average man, that enough attention was not paid to how the coalition would operate after the elections. There was the swearing-in of the President and the immediate announcement of the Head of the Presidential Secretariat.
This was necessary for the transition arrangements. But it was said then that the Prime Minister could only have been sworn in after the parliament would have convened.  This was subsequently amended after legal advice suggested that there was no impediment to the swearing-in of the prime minister. But while this was happening a vacuum had developed that created uncertainty, and as to how much the AFC was calling the shots.
It is not clear whether the AFC had any input into determining the name and functions of ministries or whether also the Prime Minister, in keeping with the Cummingsburg Accord, nominated any ministers.
Now that Ministers have been appointed, however, and Cabinet has had its first meeting, it is necessary for the spirit of the Cummingsburg Accord to be given full effect. All ministers, except foreign affairs, should report to the Prime Minister. Burnham actually had such an arrangement, in which his ministers reported on a day-to-day basis to Ptolemy Reid, his Prime Minister.   There is no reason why a similar arrangement cannot work now that we have a coalition government.
History warns us about the dangers of not paying detailed attention to the understanding reached amongst parties to a coalition. The United Force – PNC coalition almost fell apart just after the 1964 elections. Had it not been for the shuttle diplomacy done by the United States Embassy, that coalition would have broken up.  It did eventually dissipate. But while it lasted, it was always a tenuous coalition.
The supporters of both APNU and the AFC would be hoping that this present arrangement between their parties would work after the elections as it did so spectacularly during the campaign.  The basis on which it will work has to be the Cummingsburg Accord.
The Cummingsburg Accord was intended to be a post-election arrangement. It was intended to provide comfort that the largest party in the coalition would neither dominate or be dominated.   If it is followed to the letter, there should be no anxieties.

---

---