PM has made the right choice with Kangaloo

THE EDITOR: So, Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar now finds it “atrocious” for a sitting politician be elevated to the presidency. But the Leader of the Opposition had no such reservation in 1997 when she, along with the entire United National Congress (UNC) Cabinet and parliamentary cohort, set the precedent which she is now challenging.

I had been a part of that cohort. I supported the move then and I support it now. We were well advised then that there was no constitutional barrier that prevented National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) leader ANR Robinson from becoming president.

The Constitution was silent on whether a sitting politician can assume the office. But, wittingly or unwittingly, it made provision for two levels of sitting politicians to act in the office in the absence of a substantive president. And they are the President of the Senate and, in his/her absence, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Both Persad-Bissessar and Senator Wade Mark know this because Mark had acted as president while Speaker, albeit for a week or so. And Mark even by the narrowest interpretation is a quintessential “sitting politician.”

So, what’s the objection to Senate President Christine Kangaloo becoming our next president? Clearly it is not a constitutional issue. It may have been an opposition epiphany based solely on political pique and perhaps a desire to become relevant in opposition wilderness.

The UNC has been so blinded by the negative that it just stumbles in its race to become relevant. Two things the UNC and other naysayers should learn from this current unnecessary spat. First, Prime Minister Rowley acted within the Constitution in nominating Kangaloo for president, and second, the UNC’s Damascus experience will have to wait for constitutional reform. Or, as Black Stalin would say, “Wait, Dorothy, wait.”

We have been talking about constitutional reform for many years. The PNM had one opportunity to do so in 1971 when it controlled 36 seats in the House of Representative. But that was an inopportune time. The NAR could have done it in 1986 when it controlled 33 seats but didn’t. And the UNC (PP coalition) had the chance in 2010 but it too did not have the political will to change things.

With so many splintered political groupings around and consensus so difficult to achieve in matters even concerning life and death (think covid19), this thing called constitutional reform is really far, far beyond the horizon.

Placing the Kangaloo and now the Israel Khan nominations against the current Constitution, I would choose Kangaloo. The Prime Minister has made a right choice. The Constitution seems to me to prefer a level-headed, confident, fair and competent person in the office of President. The last thing this country needs now is an activist president. We need a president who is prepared to follow the Constitution and be cautious about exercising whatever powers she may have.

The presidency is not a rabble-rousing institution as some would like it to be. It is a calm reservoir of decency, hope and inspiration. Kangaloo’s demeanour fits the bill. She seems to be the one who can continue from President Paula-Mae Weekes.

I totally disagree with the learned Dr Indira Rampersad’s assessment that Kangaloo’s appointment would be “worrisome and inappropriate.” Far from it. Her appointment will be appropriate under the Constitution.

So, now that we are set to elect the seventh president under the existing constitutional arrangement, Khan’s nomination is for all intents and purposes DOA.

HARRY PARTAP

former UNC MP