by Rick Lowe
After posting the list of FNM Cabinet Ministers and Senators here... I thought it appropriate to list who had been appointed Senators by the PLP so I wrote to the media people at the PLP asking for a list.
Here is their response:
So far, we don't have a final list because Mr. Ingraham is not complying with Mr. Christie's request for the remaining 3 seats to be made up to reflect the make up of the lower chamber. 43% in the House means we are entitled to 7 seats. Ingraham has relented on one seat so far. As soon as we can confirm what the final outcome is or when the names are to be released, we will forward them to you.
This is a most interesting comment. So I did some investigation.
Here's what I found.
Article 39 of the Constitution states:
(1) The Senate shall consist of sixteen members (in this Constitution referred to as "Senators") who shall be appointed by the Governor-General by instrument under Public Seal in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(2) Nine Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister.
(3) Four Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.
(4) Three Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
Article 40 of the Constitution states:
In the exercise of the functions conferred upon him by Article 39(4) of this Constitution, the purpose of the Prime Minister shall be to secure that the political balance of the Senate reflects that of the House of Assembly at the time.
And now for a little historical perspective.
In 1987, the PLP won the election with 31 of the 49 seats or 63.27% of the House. The FNM won 16 seats for 32.65% of the House. Independents won 2 seats or 4.08% of the seats in the House. Coincidentally the two Independents were Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie who ran unopposed by the FNM.
The Senate was made up of a total of 16 Senators. The PLP had 11(68.75%) and the Opposition FNM had 5 (31.25%).
Looking at 1992 the FNM won the government with 32 MP's (65.31%) to the PLP's 17 MP's (34.69%).
The Senate was made up of 10 (62.5%) FNM Senators, 1 (6.25%) Independent Senator (Fred Mitchell) and 5 (31.25%) PLP Senators. The Opposition effectively had 37.50% of the Senate seats.
Now let's turn to 2002 when the PLP won the government again with 29 seats (72.5%), the FNM with 7 seats (17.5%) and Independents 4 seats (10%).
In this case the PLP appointed 11 (73.33%) Senators and the FNM 4 (26.67%) Senators with no Independents.
Now for 2007.
The FNM won 23 (56.10%) seats and the PLP won 18 (43.90%).
According to the position proffered by the PLP, of the 16 Senatorial positions they should receive 7 (43.75%) and the FNM 9 (56.25%).
The historical numbers speak for themselves. They have been on both sides of the argument here.
Clearly the FNM get 9 posts and the PLP receive 4, leaving three up to negotiation. Considering Article 40, the PLP have a point but I believe the three remaining positions should be more balanced individuals if possible. Not PLP and not FNM, but people that can be objective and will not be lap dogs for either party.
Maybe this can be a negotiating point with the PLP? How about the FNM suggesting that the PLP support some Constitutional amendments for the 7 Senatorial appointments?
Bearing in mind that both the FNM and PLP think the other party should be held to a higher standard than they hold themselves, what do you think you happen?