Comissiong: Stronger institutions key to thriving countries

Strengthening independent institutions that are tasked with oversight and transparency is the key to developing a robust and long-lasting democracy.

This was the view expressed by Barbados’ Ambassador to CARICOM, David Comissiong, during Tuesday’s virtual panel discussion, Imagining a New Order for Caribbean Politics: Should we embrace term limits, fixed election periods and young leaders in the political arena? which was hosted by the Grenada Students’ Association at The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus.

He said while he believed there should be term limits on leadership within the region, “the strength of a democracy is in the strength of its institutions”.

“Of course, the political party is the key institution. Unfortunately, right across the Caribbean we have underdeveloped political parties and that is something that we need to attend to, but we also need strong trade unions, strong media, strong student associations…. The key is strong institutions,” he said.

“We must develop more accountability of powerful institutions and entities, such as the elite financial and commercial companies, ministers of government, ministries, and departments of government, and we must develop more accountability of such institutions and entities to the people, via the people’s elected representatives in parliament.”

The recently elected political leader of the National Democratic Congress in Grenada and attorney-at-law Dickon Mitchell suggested that term limits and fixed election dates should be a priority in the Caribbean since, according to him, the lack of structure often leads to unfair and, in some cases, insurmountable advantages for political parties currently holding power.

“One of the reasons why I encourage and support fixed term limits and a fixed election date is one, it gives predictability. As we saw in Barbados, the incumbent can call a snap election literally with 21 days’ notice. In reality, that gives the incumbent the power to call elections when it suits the incumbent.

“It gives the incumbent a clear and demonstrable advantage over the opposition parties. I am not saying that because I lead an opposition party. I am saying if that opposition party gets into power and that remains unchecked, it allows us to do the same thing,” he explained.

Mitchell further insisted that greater emphasis must be placed on how political parties are financed.

He said in many cases, particularly during general election seasons, thousands of dollars are spent on campaign productions and promotional ads, with no clear signs as to where the money comes from.

“We have not addressed the question of how political parties are funded, and that to me is the fundamental issue that we have to address if we are going to be in the position to make political parties strong institutions,” Mitchell insisted.

“Now, as an opposition party — and I am saying particularly what has happened in the context of Grenada’s recent history — you face a situation where you are at a marked disadvantage when one compares to government because there is no question that there is a serious blurring of the lines between the political party in power and the government.

“Assuming that you give the government the benefit [of doubt] and they are not in fact blurring the lines and using state resources for political purposes, the line is still there, because the question is… is the average citizen discerning and making a distinction between the use of state resources for proper state work, or the use of state resources for political work?” he contended. (SB)