Political gimmickry

Jul 08, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Under the system of representative government, which exists in Guyana, there is no such thing as a no-confidence motion against a government Minister. What is allowable is a motion of censure against a Minister. However, the successful passage of that motion does not compel the Minister to resign.
The Opposition APNU+AFC is therefore engaged in yet another of its fishing expeditions. This time it is on a fishing stunt aimed at political redemption by trying to create the impression that the government does not respect parliamentary norms such as ministerial responsibility.
But it is the APNU+AFC that is clueless when it comes to parliamentary conventions. A motion of confidence or no-confidence is usually tabled against a government and a motion of censure against a Minister.
In countries which do not have a Presidential system, a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister is often correctly construed as a vote of no-confidence against the government, which must then resign. The two are different and have different implications.
But under the doctrine of responsible government, the Ministers merely provide guidance to the government. It is the lack of confidence, and not any Minister or Ministers, which is tantamount to a loss of confidence in the government, thus compelling it to resign.
The APNU+AFC has a distorted notion of the concept of ministerial responsibility, as this column had exposed when it had attempted to muzzle and force the resignation of then Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee.
Ministerial responsibility has two aspects to it – collective and ministerial. Collective responsibility occurs within the government and compels a Minister to go along with the policies of the government other than when his or her objections are of such gravity that he or she is unable in good conscience to support the polices, in which case the Minister should offer the President his or her resignation.
The extension of that concept to parliament means that motions of no-confidence have to be directed at the collective. The successful passage of a motion of no-confidence in the government means the government has to resign. This is a parliamentary convention, which has now been enshrined in our own written constitutional provisions. The government has to resign en bloc if there is a no-confidence motion against the government. But the APNU+AFC was adamant in not resigning since it said that 33 was not a majority of 65 and that the country cannot be without a government.
The second aspect of ministerial responsibility is individual responsibility. Patrick Weller, writing in ‘Cabinet Government in Australia 1901-2006,’ noted that in practice the convention of individual responsibility never meant that ministers should resign if departments fail in some respect or the other. Ministerial responsibility means the minister answers questions (to parliament) about his department and take remedial action to correct any deficiencies.
Weller also pointed to a former Attorney General of New Zealand who addressed this issue of cases where the minister is not personally involved. He argues that the minister is “Responsible yes, in the sense that he may have to answer and explain to parliament, but not absolutely responsible for (that is liable to censure) everything done under his administration… There is no absolute vicarious liability on the part of the minister for the ‘sins’ of his subordinates. If the Minister is free of personal, fault and could not by reasonable diligence in controlling his department have prevented the mistake, there is no compulsion to resign.”
In their book ‘Parliament, Policy and Representation,’ Harold Clarke, Colin Campbell and Arthur Goddard, argue that a minister goes because of the judgment of the prime minister who has to weigh the cost of letting the minister go as against the cost of keeping him.
Hilaire Barnett writing in ‘Constitutional and Administrative Law 8th Edition’ goes much further. He argues that the acceptance of responsibility does not lead to the resignation of a minister for failures of his department. He contends that there are no hard and fast rules as to whether and when a minister should resign, and accordingly it cannot be said that resignations form part of the convention of individual ministerial responsibility itself. He further says that the decision on resignation depends on the minister, his Prime Minister and his party.
In Guyana, it is only the President who can force a Minister to resign. The reason is obvious to all except the APNU+AFC. It is the President who holds total executive authority under the Constitution. Ministers are merely advisers of the President and all their authority is delegated authority.
Ministers are accountable to parliament in the sense that they are required to answer and explain to parliament what their Ministries are doing. But they are not accountable in the sense that they can be fired by the National Assembly or forced to resign as a result of a censure motion.
A motion of censure against a minister is usually for misconduct. Its successful passage does not mandate resignation; it is up to the President to determine whether his Minister should resign or not.
But do not tell that to the Opposition. They are engaged in political gimmickry and showmanship, all in the name of trying to show that the government is no better than them.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---