Political development will determine the right system
During the course of the many political and independence movements in the Caribbean region over the past 30 years, and the attendant discussion of various political systems, we have lived with a generally accepted reverence towards the so-called Westminster system inherited from Britain.
In the context of the imminent constitutional
changes for the Cayman Islands however, and the vigorous debates
flowing from such, it is pertinent to note that in recent years
there has emerged a quiet but firm resolve in many quarters in
this region that the Westminster model is perhaps not the holy
grail it is claimed to be after all.
To begin with, the Caribbean versions of the Westminster system
differ structurally from the British version in that the British
model emphasizes the power of parliament, while the Caribbean
ones tend to stress the supremacy of the constitution. The British
system also rests on a substantial degree of political party stability,
which is not always the case in the Caribbean.
On the latter point, party politics in Cayman is still in its diaper stages and is teething in an environment that is inherently suspicious of this approach.
It should also be noted that the Westminster paradigm assumes that the society using it is an homogenous one with commonly held values and viewpoints. This certainly is not the case in highly divergent Cayman.
However, it is in the area of the exercise of government, specifically, that the transplanted Westminster model appears to be losing favour in the Caribbean, because that system is predicated on the notion that the governing majority party is under constant rein from a strong and militant opposition. The fly in that ointment is that, particularly in smaller states, oppositions in Caribbean governments are virtually onlookers in the fray instead of combatants.
Regional intellectuals like the Honourable Professor Rex M. Nettleford of Jamaica, a former Rhodes scholar who is one of our most esteemed Caribbean intellectuals and an accomplished artist and author, and Selwyn D. Ryan, the acclaimed Trinidadian author, who among others have long made the point that in our system, with its often neutered opposition, parliament has not been the centre of power in our governments and, that governments are generally more concerned about the attitude of a critical press than the chiding from their parliamentary opposition.
Even at the micro level, we see this tendency for successive governments in power to blunt political opposition in their choices for appointments to boards and committees. Mr. Ryan argues, "Our press, when it is functioning effectively, has the ability to watch over the actions of government and provide useful channels for popular participation in decision making."As we continue to espouse the value of the democratic ideal, in the context of this question of the omnipotent government, our political engineers must pay close attention to the machinery they choose as their instrument. Political history is replete with evidence that, apart from the anarchy of no government, the greatest danger to a society is one where the checks and balances of a parliamentary opposition are eliminated or negated.
As we consider methods and styles of governance, Westminster or a variation, as well as the emergence of the party system here, we must stress the vital need for political maturity, in government and in its opposition, in order for the democratic system to be effective.