Wrong approach in formation of the govt

 

Democracy is messy.

Winston Churchill said the system has many weaknesses until you have considered the alternatives.

His opinion is characteristically democratic: a willingness to admit weakness before awareness dawns that what is weakness is actually strength.

The five days since the results of GE15 were made known have demonstrated the messiness of democracy.

A cacophony of voices and a tumult of clashing opinions appear to be the order of the day.

That is because when opinions are myriad confusion is easily generated which should not be surprising because democracy encourages a variety of opinions.

Though confusion thereby is easily fomented, confoundment is not necessarily the consequence.

That is because we have a written constitution which says in circumstances like the prevailing one, the head of state should appoint as prime minister someone who in his opinion is able to command the support of a majority in the Lower House.

That opinion is not based on anything airy.

It is premised on the substantive which is that the appointed leader already enjoys the support of his cohort in Parliament whose numbers are in excess of those who support his nearest challenger.

The appointed leader has then, within a specified time frame, to demonstrate through a vote in Parliament that he enjoys the confidence of a simple majority of members.

If he doesn’t, the head of state can call upon another leader, and give the person a time frame within which to demonstrate he enjoys a simple majority’s support in the Lower House.

This way of proceeding by the head of state is based on parliamentary convention in countries that follow the Westminster model of democratic government.

Unwarranted tensions and confusions

It defies belief that for conventions this straightforward and comprehensible, and this logical, there has been so much dishevelment and to-ing and fro-ing in the past few days.

Matters concerning questions of national unity need not be made germane to the issue of who is to be appointed as the provisional prime minister.

After a general election this equivocal, the person appointed as provisional PM will have to display -- in the time frame he is provided to demonstrate his acceptability in Parliament – a capability to transcend the deep divisions evidenced by the electoral returns.

There is no need to jumpstart the process.

To impose the requisite of unity at the outset would be to foreclose on the opportunity for transcendent leadership that the PM-elect is impliedly called to exhibit.

The unwarranted tensions and confusions of the last few days are so much complication clouding a process that ought not to be perplexing.

The flaunting of statutory declarations as evidence of support is actually a travesty of the entire process.

This is a process that ought to end with a show of hands or by balloting in the Lower House.

In any case, all the wrangling and dishevelment of the days gone by, its indignity and squalor, may eventuate in people’s acceptance of the final simplicity that sometimes issues from excessive complication.

This is that the one with the highest number of MPs at the election’s finish ought to be the one that must get the first try at demonstrating, within a certain time frame, that he has the numbers to stay on as PM.

It is as simple as that. - Mkini

---

TERENCE NETTO is a journalist with half a century's experience.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.