Formal consultations should be separated from political talks

Apr 22, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The government should reject any attempt to broaden the formal consultations, between the President and the Leader of the Opposition, to include issues of governance. Formal consultations have to be kept separate and distinct from political engagements.
Formal constitutional consultations do not fall within the ambit of political cooperation. These consultations are mandatory under the Constitution and are statutory requirements, not acts of political discretion.
It is desirable for the country’s two foremost political leaders to engage in dialogue. But that process has to be disjoined from formal constitutional consultations.
The President is required, by the Constitution, to consult with the Leader of the Opposition in appointing the Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Deputy Commissioners and the Commissioner of Police. The President is also required to consult and have agreement with the Leader of the Opposition in appointing the Chancellor and Chief Justice.
He is also required to consult with the Leader of the Opposition in relation to one of the appointed members of the Judicial Service Commission. Consultation is also required for the appointment of an Ombudsman.
These consultations should not become the object of any quid pro quo. They should be kept free of the risk of political bargaining in which something is given in return for something else.
The Service Commissions are supposed to be insulated from political interference. It would be ironic, if appointments to Service Commissions are subject to political horse trading, as can happen if the agenda for consultations are widened to include issues of governance.
The President had made a distinction between formal consultations with the Leader of the Opposition and political talks with the Leader of the Opposition. When Joseph Harmon was Leader of the Opposition, the President had questioned how he could have talks with someone who does not recognise him. But he had also made it clear that when it comes to fulfilling his constitutional mandate, he would comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
The President has since said that he will meet with the new Leader of the Opposition within two weeks. This meeting is to be in relation to constitutional matters. The Leader of the Opposition, however, is reported to have said that he wants the agenda of the meeting to be widened.
There should be no preconditions set for formal consultations between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. But conditions can and should be set in relation to political talks between the Government and the Opposition.
As such, there should be two separate and distinct agendas. Formal consultations should deal exclusively with the appointments mandated by the Constitution.
But on the issue of governance, this has to be a separate process. Given the tense relationship between the Government and the Opposition, including absurd charges of the government not being recognised, there has to be a rapprochement – a period of establishing cordial relations.
Independent of the formal constitutional consultations, the two sides should appoint plenipotentiaries to have exploratory meetings so as to agree on a common agenda and a process for political talks – whether it is called, dialogue, constructive engagement, etc.
It is impractical (and possibly impossible) for an agenda to emerge immediately for such talks. There has to be a process in which the sides will have to engage with each other, all the more so considering their tempestuous relationship since the no-confidence motion of December 2018.
Such engagements should ideally be initiated by the respective Chief Whips. But it can also be mediated by civil society groupings, especially those who have indicated that they are keen on establishing an inclusive democracy.
Given the suspicion that both parties may have about some of these civil society organisations, a more flexible arrangement would be for the Chief Whips to identify a good officer which both sides can trust and who can discuss with both sides a modus operandi.
The government would be within its rights to demand guarantees that the Opposition demonstrate good faith by pledging a commitment to respect democratic norms. But the Opposition is likely to revolt at such a suggestion.
This is all the more reason why the proposal for governance talks should be mediated by a good officer who can help lay the groundwork for establishing an agenda for a meeting between the political leaders.
Alternatively, each side can appoint representatives who can hammer out the details of an agenda. But in so far as the formal constitutional talks are concerned, there should be no strings attached and no conditions imposed.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---