There are arguments for and against forming a ‘minority’
government in the wake of Premier McKeeva Bush’s ouster.
A minority government means that government will have less
than the minimum of eight members normally required for a legislative majority.
On balance, we believe the arguments against forming such a
government outweigh the benefits of doing so.
A minority government will not help foster security or
certainty regarding public sector decisions over the next five months. There
are a number of things that the Cayman Islands needs to get done, or at least
decide upon in the near term. How much chance do readers believe items like the
ForCayman Alliance agreement, the national pensions reform, immigration reform
and the port negotiations have of being taken care of properly under such a
hodge-podge arrangement? We are now
depending, more than ever, on a group of legislators to work together in
partnership – who have never managed to do so in three-and-a-half years.
A decision to call early elections could indeed lead to
several hundred voters being disenfranchised who normally would have been able
to cast ballots on 22 May, 2013.
However, there may also be indecision in how a ‘minority’
government proceeds with any other legislative measures, including the
implementation of new levies upon the financial services industry upon which
the government now depends to make ends meet.
No, we believe the true reason for opting in favour of a
minority government has to do with the United Kingdom wanting to avoid – at all
costs – the continuation of McKeeva Bush as premier. If Governor Duncan Taylor
dissolved parliament, while the Legislative Assembly would no longer be able to
meet, Mr. Bush would still remain as premier until the date of the early
election. That election would have to be called within two months of the
This is a disturbing prospect. The UK would rather set up
what can only be described as a tenuous governance arrangement for the next
five months, rather than risk Mr. Bush getting back into office.