Opinion: Why we need a national vote for premier and Cabinet

By James E. Whittaker

One of the most common complaints among the voting populace in the Cayman Islands is the continual lack of positive outcomes on the key issues facing the country – cost of living, affordable housing, energy, healthcare, education and more.

Many of us believe the root cause of this is because our elected officials, who are placed in the highest positions of government leadership, are often inexperienced and unqualified and, thus, largely incapable of effectively resolving Cayman’s ever-growing problems, hurting us economically, socially and environmentally while placing Cayman’s future prosperity at ever-more risk.

While not all elected officials fall into this category, our continued inability to resolve the major challenges facing the Cayman Islands can be linked to an ‘overall’ lack of leadership competency.

This is not to posit in the least that we should just keep retreading legacy politicians solely based on experience. As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. However, we should broaden the powers of the voters to assess who is most fit to lead.

That said, ‘mandating’ levels of experience and academic and/or professional qualifications for elected officials is highly problematic, for many valid reasons, in a democracy. Ultimately, the voters must have the right to select whomever among them they feel best serves their interests if there are no legally disqualifying criteria, such as criminal convictions or citizenship-status disqualifiers.

How, then, can voters of the Cayman Islands better address our challenge of enhancing the quality of its overall leadership and thus attain better government performance and outcomes for the people?

I believe we must start by creating three distinct branches of government, which encompasses national, constituency and district voting.

Three branches of government

1) The executive branch of government would be the first branch, comprising the premier and ministers elected through a national vote. The elected members of the executive branch lead the country and the ministries, and some of its members – namely, the premier, minister of finance and minister of tourism – are mandated members of Cabinet.

2) The Parliament of the Cayman Islands would be the second branch – the legislative branch – elected through a constituency poll which remains unchanged from the current status quo under the one-man-one-vote process. Members of Parliament encompass the majority seats in Cabinet, which remains the body responsible for policy formulation and legislation.

3) District councils would be the third formal branch, with leadership boards that are democratically elected through district votes. The district councils consult with Members of Parliament of the constituencies in their district on an ongoing basis to continually address issues critical to the voters in those districts. Much like elected county boards and commissions in the United States, it is highly probable that district councils would also act as a natural conduit for better preparing future politicians at the MP and executive levels in the Cayman Islands, further enhancing leadership competency in the long term.

Under the proposed three-tier governmental structure, the voters of the Cayman Islands would have more power to decide who is best to lead the country, as electors would be casting three distinct votes each election – a national vote (premier and ministers), a constituency vote (Members of Parliament) and district cotes (district council leaders).

While the executive branch would lead the overall government and ministries, it could not pass legislation as that would remain within the powers of the elected Members of Parliament. This would ultimately provide a greater level of checks and balances on power than the status quo, and force greater cooperation and collaboration between the executive branch and Members of Parliament to act in the best interests of the country.

‘Status quo’: Small groups, big consequences

With the current electoral system, Cayman’s elected officials can often win their MP positions with just a few hundred constituency votes, and some are then elevated to the highest positions of power in the land through closed-door negotiations post election – what we often call “horse trading”.

I strongly argue that horse trading for the positions of premier and ministers amongst elected officials and party members after elections are over, removes crucial decision-making ability of the voting public during the election. It is the public that should make those critical democratic determinations directly. As a result of the current approach, at the moment, our voters have very little say in who ultimately leads Cayman.

The ultimate decisions for leadership positions often now depends on factors such as party position, personal affiliations, wealth and influence, and various other ‘non-competency’-related considerations. And we wonder why we continue to have poor outcomes towards our major national issues every four years?

The status quo is clearly not the most effective or democratic way to select the most qualified and competent persons to lead the country, and it is now time that we change this.

If the premier and the ministers are elected nationally, the only selective decision making thereafter is that the premier would select the deputy premier from any of the other elected members of the executive branch or Parliament. That’s it. No more closed doors deals on who gets to lead. Cayman’s voters decide.

If national voting were added to our electoral structure for 2029, it would have several positive impacts; namely, the increased probability of electing more qualified, experienced and capable leaders – without mandating specific qualifications or experience – by allowing all registered voters to collectively assess and decide which candidate(s) for premier and ministerial positions best represent the interests of the country.

Furthermore, political parties and independents would be required to announce which candidates are running for premier and ministers before the election, and not simply determine those positions behind closed doors in horse trading sessions after the election is over.

Under the much broader spotlight of national voting, where you must appeal to more than 20,000 voters across the country and not just 200-plus friends, family and neighbours, political parties would inherently be leveraged into presenting candidates who are well qualified and/or experienced for the specific leadership positions they are contesting.

In practical terms, this mean it would be unlikely for parties to field candidates for minister of finance who lack finance experience; candidates for minister of health without a background in healthcare; or candidates for minister of education who do not have any educational experience, etc.

A candidate’s ‘pre-election plans’ for how they would lead the ministry for which they are running would have to become more robust and specific, given it is being assessed by thousands of Cayman’s voters. Vague aspirations with lack of experience or qualifications in those areas would be unlikely to cut it any longer.

Another likely byproduct of this approach would be that independent candidates who possess the requisite experience or qualifications for specific leadership roles in the executive branch would now be more likely to consider running for public office. This is because the chances of succeeding by appealing to ‘all voters’ nationally would provide a clearer path to success (versus trying to win over a few hundred votes in a particular constituency, in which they may not even live, and to which the incumbent MP may already have a legacy stranglehold).

This would enhance candidate quality for Cayman’s elections and allow those individuals to avoid the pressure of needing to join an established political party (should they decide the party does not align with their views) for fear that, even if elected, they would have little to no power or influence to effect any meaningful change. As we can see from the coming 2025 election, the pressure for candidates to join a party to ensure they can wield decision-making powers, if elected, is compelling.

Those likely to be most resistant to such electoral reform are established political parties and legacy MPs who do not want the burden of having to field candidates that are demonstrably qualified and experienced for executive positions, and for whom the current status quo system ensures they are likely to win seats in those positions without the burden of appealing to all of Cayman’s national voting base.

Are there any democratically valid reasons why all voters in Cayman should not have the ultimate say in who their preferred leaders will be, whom they feel represent the best interests of the country?

I would argue the answer is a resounding no; ‘the people’ should decide who the premier and the ministers will be during the election, and not via back-room deals done in secret and post election.

There are several things we can do to better evolve our electoral system to improve Cayman’s chances for better governance. This proposed approach is only part one of a multi-part approach to that end.

National, constituency and district voting for the 2029 elections will enhance the likelihood that more qualified, experienced and competent individuals will stand for elected office, and those who are elected are more likely to have the competency required for the highest positions of power.

Ultimately, this will increase our chances of successfully solving the major issues we face as a country.

As a result, the next government elected in April of 2025 should consider enacting this reform for 2029.

Editor’s note: James E. Whittaker is the founder of Caymanomics, an emerging think tank exploring issues affecting the economic, social and environmental prosperity of the Cayman Islands. He is not related to Cayman Compass journalist James Whittaker.