Abstract

The Westminster model is the main political model used throughout the region. It lacks

appropriate mechanisms to provide accountability and transparency. This results in corruption,

malpractices embezzlement lack of trust and confidence in the system which portrays poor

management of the society. The paper examines the lack of separation of powers, the ma

underpinning of the accountability and transparency. In addition, the inefficiency of the

parliament and opposition contributes to the issue. Remedies such as separating powers,

decentralization, accountability regimes, acts are proposed that can make the system work more

efficient and promote good governance. The inefficiency of the system has been well

documented and has resulted in calls for amendments and reformation. In order to support this

reformation claim; the author has attempted to synthesize findings from 15 sources.

The purpose of the study is to present a critical review of the accountability and

transparency deficiencies that is crippling the system. The critical question investigated is: What

can be done to promote or improve accountability and transparency in the Westminster model. It

is hoped that these reformation strategies will be carried out and more efficient acts implemented

to improve the accountability and transparency lacking in the model.

 Between 1962 and 1983, majority of Britain’s Caribbean colonies gained independence

achieved through a gradualist process of constitution decolonization. Independence was

consolidated through political institutions and norms based on Britain’s Westminster model of

government. The region’s earlier leaders endorsed it such as Williams (1955) who said, ‘after all,

if the British constitution is good enough for Great Britain, it should be good enough for us.’

This type of statement among others, were key to the entrenchment of Westminster government

in the soon to be independent states. Considering current debates about the nature, quality and

resilience of democracy in the post-independence Caribbean, it is timely to return to the question

of the model and its application to the region. Analysis of the practice of Westminster in the

Caribbean, has recognized democratic deficiencies associated with the application of the model

in Caribbean states. World Bank noted that the Caribbean in its democratic political aspect as

currently conceived and increasingly practiced in the international development community has

two principal components: participation and accountability. Participants chiefly concerned with

increasing the role of citizens in choosing their local leaders and in telling those leaders what to

do, in other words, providing inputs into local governance. Accountability constitutes the other

side of the process, it is the degree to which local governments should explain or justify what

they have done or failed to do. Accountability is aligned to transparency, which outlines that in

local government, there should be less scope for corruption, in that dishonesty behaviour would

become more easily detectable, punished, and discouraged in the future. The basis of

accountability and transparency in the Caribbean political model has been a recurring theme.

Stone (1986) & Ryan (1999) agreed that unchecked executive power and the emasculation of the

legislature, a lack of separation between the executive and legislative branches of government,

an adversarial winner takes all political culture, corruption, clientelism and political tribalism is
crippling the forces that holds the government accountable and transparent in decision making

process.

According to Stanbury (2003), it is necessary to exercise power in the form of delegated

authority in the context of a democracy that generates the need for accountability. Power is a

conundrum and is necessary for things to get done and get done efficiently. Power can be used

improperly and may tend to corrupt individuals who possess it. Monks & Minnow (1991) agreed

that accountability makes a delegated authority legitimate; without accountability, there is

nothing to prevent abuse. Furthermore, the exercise of power without accountability will lead to

despotism. The Westminster model has a doctrine of ministerial responsibility which ‘identifies

who has a final responsibility for all decisions taken- the minister, and provides a forum in which

he is publicly accountable – parliament’. (Lambert 1979) The Westminster model has three arms

of government namely the executive, legislature and judiciary, the executive and legislature

functions as one. The Executive comprises the Prime Minster and members of the Cabinet. The

Prime Minister and the Cabinet have the responsibility to guide Government policy. The Prime

Minister presides over the Cabinet, whose members are selected from among the elected officials

of the majority party, known as Members of Parliament, as well as members of the Senate. The

Legislature is responsible for enacting and amending laws for the peace, order and development

of Jamaica. The Jamaican Parliament is bicameral, meaning the Parliament is composed of the

Monarch and two legislative bodies ̶ the nominated Senate, commonly referred to as the Upper

House and the elected House of Representatives, known as the Lower House. The judiciary on

the other hand is a section of the government responsible for the settlement of law. Their role is

to also enforce the law and interpret the law as it stands.

 Power is therefore placed in the hand of ministers individually and collectively (cabinet),

and in so doing Stanbury (2004) believes the cabinet should be responsible to the legislature

which will allow citizens to hold them accountable at elections. This representative

accountability emphasizes the obligation of representatives to their constituents. Robinson

(2012) stated that representative accountability is commonly used in government circles and has

roots in political theory which when applied to the public sector is expected to be democratic to

voters towards their elected representatives. World Bank however believed that elections provide

the most obvious accountability but is a rather blunt tool, exercised only at widespread intervals

and offering only the broadest citizen control over government. This type of accountability is

referred to as the principal agent model which Ferejohn (1999) believed that it offers greater

transparency in public decision-making by increasing control over political agents which, in turn,

increases the size of governments demanded by voters in a democracy. Thus, if the government

reveals certain documents so the public can access and criticize and scrutinize, their

shortcomings will be exposed, and this revealing helps the government to prevent another

occurrence by being more efficient and effective. Take for instance, Jamaica that has appointed

an Access to Information Act in 2004, it has legitimized the publics’ right to access official

documents created and maintained by all government authorities. It is one of the boldest

initiatives adopted by the Jamaican government to make government more transparent, publicly

accountable and accessible to its populace and has created an environment to encourage and

foster public participation.

In practice however, the Westminster model does a poor job of making the government

accountable to citizens. Accountability is a shared responsibility, with central roles played by

parliament, ministries, and the public service. The model does not have a strong tradition of
separations of power. The legislative and executive are interrelated thereby creating issues

regarding whom is to be held accountable for certain decisions and actions taken by the

government. There should be checks and balances to address the dynamic relationships between

the parliament and the executive, particularly when the executive is controlled by a majority in

parliament. Good governance requires a vital political culture and respect for democratic

institutions. Therefore, parliaments should be designed to ensure they are a constant, reliable and

legitimate check on government. Although parliament does not exercise executive control, it is

the principal guarantor of the governments accountability, scrutinizing the government’s policies

and actions and holding it to account. Parliament has a spectrum of tools for doing this, ranging

from its role in the passage of legislation to the review and approval of public expenditure to the

interrogations of questions. The question period is a distinctive feature of Westminster model

and arguably its most powerful tool of accountability. This period gives parliamentarians timely

opportunities to challenge policies and raise questions about administration. Ministers are

obliged to present in the house of commons to respond to questions, to account for the

responsibility that has been assigned to them and to defend the ways in which they or their

officials have exercised authority. By questioning ministers, parliamentarians hold the

government to account in ways that apply appropriate political pressure, especially by raising

public attention to a problem. But the parliament is so caught up with maximizing their self-

interest and seeking more power that ensuring accountability is not their prioritized. This is

further evidenced by Niskanen (1971) stated in the budget shaping model each member in

government are simple monopolists who are able to impose their own preferences on the

governing party and maximize their self-interest A failure in government accountability is a

failure in the role of parliamentarians as they are not an institution of management but an
institution of accountability, not to run the government but to hold the government accountable

for how they run themselves. We see where individual self interest hampers the role of ensuring

accountability from the parliament to the executive.

It has often been said that the political model in the region lacks sufficient transparency.

The main underpinning of Caribbean lack of transparency is the recurring issue of corruption.

Corruption is the abuse of public office for private gains. It robs citizens’ expectations for

improvements in service deliveries, undermines trust in public institutions, particularly in the

judiciary and security forces and hinders investment by increasing the cost of doing business and

distrust in investment security. Therefore, nations with perceived high levels of corruption have

very low levels of development. The Westminster model does not provide a function that

emphasizes curtailing corruption, and this reflects negatively in our society. The national

Integrity Systems Caribbean composite study (2004) examined the national study integrity

systems of eight island states of CARICOM and reported that narcotics related corruption and

associated arms trafficking, money laundering and financial crime constitute a governing threat

in the region. It went further to say, ‘political corruption in the context of ineffective

procurement systems completely unregulated political parties and winner takes all

majoritarianism seriously undermine the quality of democratic governance.’ The winner takes all

majoritarianism is a key component in the political model which emphasizes that something is

wrong with the system. It can be attributed to Jamaica’s current position on the corruption

perception index stands at 83 out of 175 countries. This is a very high figure and represents the

lack of transparency by our elected officials in our decision making in the country because of the

system. Quinn (2015) argued that the concentration of executive power and a lack of separation

between the executive and legislature is a negative characteristic of the west minister model.
This feature means that there are growing demands for change demonstrating its lack of

transparency. In the model, the prime minister and members of his cabinet are a part of the

executive as well as the legislature so the possibility arises that decisions and actions of those in

government may be withheld for public scrutiny. This is where majority of issues with

transparency arise since members of each arm sit together in parliament. The power is left

unchecked and voters are deprived of their right to access to information which highlights the

lack of accountability and transparency in the system.

The system is designed for the opposition to demand transparency from the executive, but

members of the opposition also makes up the government. The budget shaping model posited by

Niskanen (1971) stated that each member in government works to maximize their budget and

maximize their self-interest. So, the opposition although should demand transparency is caught

up with satisfying their own self interests that their role of demanding transparency is not

performed adequately. A major corruption issue that shook the public sector was that of David

Smith former boss at Olint Investment, a ponzi scheme that had an operation in Jamaica. The

Gleaner (2012) reported that the PNP received US $1 million dollars which is seen as tainted gift

since the activities were of the investment businesses was illegitimate. The Turks and Caicos

Islands Supreme Court Confiscation Order (2012) posited that Mr. Smith “benefited in the sum

of at least US$220 million” and made “tainted gifts … of US$5 million to the Jamaica Labour

Party … and US$2 million to the People’s National Party.” The closely interrelated functions of

the executive and legislative makes it difficult for transparency to seen as there is no check on

each other power as each is working in their own self-interest.

The public service sector under the west minister model role has significantly changed

from its intended purpose. Its major role is to advise government on policy options, implement
government’s policy decisions and functions generally as the government’s administrative

machinery. However, benefits that arise from being a public servant is all too lucrative for

individuals to ignore and ‘the service’ to be offered towards the functioning of society has

become a business. Many different roles have been created to accommodate a growing influx of

public servants and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency. Little may know that the

police force in a west minister model is an executive function. The police force falls under the

executive body of national security, so therefore one begs the question when a police officer is

involved in killing someone, who should be held accountable, the security minister or

appointments created to oversee the police force. According to the United States Department of

State 2014 report on human rights practices, Jamaica’s government is corrupt and lacks

transparency. The report said although there are existing laws which provides criminal penalties

for corrupt officials, the government has failed to effectively implement the laws resulting in

officials engaging in corrupt practices with impunity.

Indeed, there are several ways in which the government can improve accountability and

transparency in the Westminster model and this will promote the good governance of the society.

A major player in improving accountability is the concept of decentralization. Decentralization

reforms leads to tension among various stakeholders which might be a last option if the system

fails in its accountability regime. It leads to redistribution of power within and between levels of

government with different actors having opposing interests in the reforms. Lakina (2008) posited

that analyzing the local political setting is crucial to understanding the factors that drive

accountability. I believe that the system needs to be decentralized which will restructure the local

political setting, reshaping local actor and voter incentives in many ways. Keating (2008) also

agreed with decentralization by changing the size of municipalities, reformulating local electoral
legislation and redefining formal relationships between the representative and the executive

bodies. In the Westminster model, to improve accountability, it would require local leaders to act

independently and responsibly. Therefore, to improve the quality of decision making in the

country, there should be checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary

branches of government and a clear separation of powers among them. We are not completely

moving away from the Westminster model but reforming it to improve accountability in the

Caribbean context. Yilmaz et al. (2008) proposed that a key prerequisite for the separation of

powers is a specialized court system or alternative local dispute mechanism to able to resolve

conflicts arising from government actions. In other words, if a government official is having

accountability issues in his respective sector, they can be brought before a special court rather

than the opposition or lower house doing it. It should also be noted that opposition and

parliamentarians work in their self-interests so may not carry out their roles efficiently. What is

being proposed is that we embrace a special court that will bring ministers to clear accountability

debacles they are in. These courts are a formal mechanism that can mediate between government

officials and citizens in disputes about administrative actions.

In addition, an important component of institutional separation of powers is the

relationship between the executive and the legislative. The relationship between and the relative

weight of the local executive and the local council establish how local decisions are made. The

executive is responsive to the legislative, that is the government of the day remains only in

power so as long as it commands the confidence of the elected house of commons. The executive

is therefore accountable to the legislative for the exercise if its authority and together they are

accountable to the electorate, in the system, members of the executive sit in the legislature. To

improve the accountability, an accountability regime must be established and defined by core
features. I do not think that our elected officials voting patterns need to change because as a

democratic society, I believe we should have a say to who makes up our parliament. While it is

very difficult to separate legislative from executive as our executive is made up elected officials

from the legislative, each individual should recognize that they are performing a dual role in the

country and should seek to it that each role is carried out efficiently. The Treasury Board of

Canada Secretariat outlined features that can be used to strengthen accountability in legislative

and executive which include: well defined roles and responsibilities, a credible source of

rendering an account where those with responsibility answer for their performance against the

standard of what they were expected to do and the assignments of consequences, good or bad, for

their performance of responsibilities. Therefore, the actions of ministers and public servants and

reforms to the accountability regime must be guided by a vision of good governance.

I must commend the various acts that have taken place in the Jamaican society to

improve transparency. It should be noted that effective accountability regime facilitates

transparency. In the order that officials may be held accountable, the principle of transparency

will require that the decisions and actions of government are open to public scrutiny and the

public has a right to access government information. As noted before, I strongly believe that

Jamaica has created acts to improve transparency, so the issue really falls on the accountability

regime of the Westminster model to improve. The system cannot improve transparency without

tackling accountability, therefore until is revamped, the countries that adopt this system must

implement acts and laws within their society to tackle the grappling issue of corruption. The

more the public knows about the government’s actions, the better judgement it can make about

public policy.
 The Right to Information Act 2002 of Jamaica gives the public general right of access to

official government documents which would otherwise be inaccessible. Hence, public access is

granted to several government documents, including some from the cabinet, which were

previously listed as classified. The Act has directly impacted records management in

Government entities as demands on record-keeping practices have increased dramatically as a

result of the ATI Act. The public is made aware of how the government functions and policies

implemented. The act is therefore implemented to reinforce fundamental principles underlying

the system of constitutional democracy, that is transparency in decision making. Every ministry

should require a level of transparency from its portfolio. The ministry of Finance and Public

Service is an executive function of the Westminster model of Jamaica that has the overall

responsibility for developing the government’s fiscal and economic framework. The access to

information act plays a pertinent role in the ministry based on the complexities and technicalities

which the portfolio undermines. This portfolio includes bodies such as: Tax Administration Act

Jamaica, Bank of Jamaica, Finsac Limited among others which must provide documents upon

request to the public if the need arises promoting transparency in the ministry. This is evidenced

by the 354 requests that has been received under the act from the media, civil society, academia

among others from January 4, 2004 to September 5, 2016. The ministry must be fully efficient to

able to grant access to over 85% of applications of documents requested. To improve the

transparency under the act, the ministry has revamped its online page and have included

documents and details pertaining to: functions of public authority, budgetary revenue, and media

details. More information on the happening and processes are achieved when the government is

transparent. This concept is important to the idea of democracy, without these concepts,

democracy would be impossible.

 The National Integrity Action has been a ‘watchodg’ for corruption in Jamaica for the

past 5 years. Their mission is to combat corruption and build integrity in Jamaica through the

persistent promotion of transparency and accountability in the conduct of government, business

and the wider society. Its vision is to see a Jamaica where government, business and civil society

and the people manifest integrity in their conduct, are held accountable and apply proper

sanctions for corrupt activities. Less corruption and more transparency encourage investment and

job creation as well as increasing public confidence in anti-corruption efforts. A recent NIA

commissioned poll showed that only 5% of Jamaicans felt that the government was effectively

leading the fight against corruption. This shows that there is indeed an issue with our political

model, the people themselves do not trust the system. I say this because the individuals that work

with the system go along with the function of it and there is no punishment meted towards that

individual for corrupt acts neither does it have transparency mechanisms put in place, so their

work can be accessed by the public. It should be noted that the government is a public service

which should allow the individuals of the public to able to understand and see the decision

making in the sector so as to know the current affairs of the state. The NIA has been lobbying for

government sectors to release certain files, more recently the NSWMA financial statements

which was last seen in the house of parliaments from 2006. Corruption is therefore the breeding

site for scandals and Jamaica has been plagued with many, there is the Shell Waiver scandal,

1991; the motor vehicle importation scandal, 1992; the foreign-exchange scandal, 1993; the land

distribution scandal at Holland, 1994; the sand mining scandal, 1994; the Water Commission

scandal, 1994-1995 and most popular to date is the FINSAC debacle. Prime Minister Andrew

Holness praised the work of NIA by saying that it is the lead anticorruption organization which

has spearheaded numerous activities and education campaigns aimed at increasing awareness of
the importance of transparency and integrity to economic development and social development.

The Holness led administration not only accept the mandate but has also embraced the

responsibility to create an environment which discourages corruption at all levels.

Lastly, although it has been implemented, the current Holness led administration

introduced a new transparency mechanism by launching the Open Data Portal. According to

Wheatley (2016) the open data portal will ‘promote greater transparency in government by

increasing the state’s engagement with citizens and businesses and removing barriers in

accessing information. The portal seeks to release data generated by the government that can be

freely used, reused and redistributed without copyright restrictions, patents or other mechanisms.

Wheatley further elaborated that Jamaica’s new transparent mechanism is the first of its kind in

the Caribbean as it provides a ‘one stop shop’ for all government information. There was the

issue that when data is available to the public, they are not necessarily presented in easily

accessible formats and people are often unaware of how to access and utilize them.

The Westminster system in Jamaica has lacked effective accountability and transparency

measures. The system is old and lacks a direct approach in tackling accountability and

transparency. The underlying reason stems from the lack of separation of powers between the

executive and legislature. The parliament acts a check on power, which, but majority of the

ruling party nevertheless makes up this chamber and their role is severely diminished. The

system needs to be amended to support effective accountability, which is essential in providing

good governance. For the government to be transparent, it must practice accountability, so most

countries must implement acts and policies to improve transparency. The Westminster system

should therefore be amended to reflect a more accountable and transparent system to make it

efficient.
 References

Ferejohn, J. (1999). Accountabiltiy and Authority: Towards a Theory of Political Accountabilty.

In Democracy, Accountabilty and Representation, ed. Przeworski, Stokes and Manin.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 131-153

Jamaica Observer. (2015). Former Olint boss released from TCI prison. Retrieved from

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/FREED_18268111

Keating, M. (1995). “Size, Efficiency and Democracy: Consolidation, Fragmentation and Public

Choice.” In Theories of Urban Politics, ed. D. Judge, G. Stoker, and H. Wolman.

London: Sage Publications

Lankina, Tomila V., Anneke Hudalla, and Hellmut Wollmann. (2007). Local Governance in

Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing Performance in the Czech Republic, Hungary,

Poland and Russia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Monks, R.A.G. & Minno, N. (1991). Power and Auhtority. New York: HarperCollins

Niskanen, W. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government: Transaction Publishers, 4.

Quinn, K (2015). Introduction: revisiting Westminster in the Caribbean. Commonwealth &

Comparative Politics. Vol 53. Issue 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2014.993146

Robinson, N. (2012) CSO Accountability in the Caribbean. Retrieved from

http://www.caribank.org/uploads/2012/12/Presentation-Accountability-Nelcia-

Roboinso.pdf

Ryan, S. (1999). Winner takes all: The Westminster experience in the Caribbean. St.

Augustine: ISER, University of the West Indies.

Stanbury, S (2003) Accountabilty to Citizens in the Westminister Model of Government: More

myth than reality. Fraser Institution Digital Production

Stone, C. (1986). Class, state and democracy in Jamaica. New York: Praeger.

Teacher, Law. (2013). There Are Few Checks And Balances On The Power Of The Government

Public Law Essay. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-

law/there-are-few-checks-and-balances-on-the-power-of-the-government-public-law-

essay.php?cref=1

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2005). Review of the responsibilities and accountabilities

of minsters and senior officials.

Williams, E. (1955). Constitution Reform in Trinidad and Tobago, Public Affairs Pamphlet No.

2. Trinidad: Teachers’ Educational and Cultural Association.

Yilmaz, S, Beris Y & Seranno-Berthet. (2008). Social Development Working Papers. Local

Government Discretion and Accountabilty: A Diagnostic Framework for Local

Governance. 113