Return to the article
outline
[Members of Congress]
[45.7% of the voters in the August 27, 2002, referendum voted
in favor of this amendment. A 75% affirmative vote was required to pass
the amendment, so the amendment failed.]
10. Committee Proposal No. 01-16:
This proposed amendment will amend Section 8 of Article
IX of the Constitution to (1) add one more at-large member from each of the
four states; (2) provide a 4-year term for all members of Congress ; and (3) impose a
term limit of 12 years on all members.
ANALYSIS:
One of the problems with this proposal is its format. It
contains three different amendments. It will present a problem for the voters
because they cannot vote separately on the three amendments. They will be
forced to either vote "Yes" or "No" on all three, even if
they like or dislike only one of them. In other words, there will be only one
"Yes" box and one "No" box on the ballot for all three
proposed amendments.
This proposal will add four more at-large members to the FSM
Congress. It will bring the total number of members to 18, compare to the
current 14. The smaller states will gain an infinitesimal advantage from this
proposal, but the addition of 4 more members will increase the Congress budget
by almost a million dollars. The main question in this proposal, and the one
that the voters must ultimately decide, is whether this negligible advantage
for the smaller states justifies the large increase in Congress budget.
Top of page
The second issue in this proposal is whether or not
all members of the FSM Congress should serve for four years. Currently, only
the 4 at-large members serve for four years. The ten members representing the
various election districts in the four states serve for two years. This issue
involves the fundamental democratic principle of the voters’ right to
evaluate the performance of their representatives in the elections every two
years instead of the proposed four years. The proponents of this proposed
amendment argue that it will save money and eliminate pork barrel legislation.
It might save money because elections will be less frequent, but it is
doubtful whether it will get rid of pork barrel legislation. Pork barrel is
the single most effective means for incumbent politicians to be re-elected in Micronesia. So as long as politicians are eligible for
re-elections, pork barrel will remain the bread and butter of politics here.
The voters must decide whether they want to give up their
right to pass judgment on their representatives in Congress every two years
because of the small saving in money and the dubious argument that extending
the term to four years will eliminate the loathsome pork barrel legislation.
The last issue tucked away in this proposal is a twelve-year
term limit for all members of Congress. Currently, there is no limit as to how
long a member of Congress may serve. Several members of the Congress have
served longer than 20 years.
Top of page
The proponents of this proposed amendment argue that it will
bring the much-needed fresh ideas, neoteric approaches, and new ways of doing
things to Congress. In other words, a renaissance (if not a revolution) will
take place in Congress when new members come in and old members leave.
On the other hand, opponents argue that this proposal is
disruptive and lack the crucial continuity that is needed in a legislative
body. Additionally, the Congress does not need term limit because voters may
choose to retain or kick out an incumbent during election. In other words, the
voters are free to decide whether to vote for or against an incumbent.
Although this argument is valid, I should point out that the incumbents have
undue advantage over their opponents during election. The incumbent
representatives’ favorite means of securing votes for re-election is to dole
out pork barrel projects to their supporters. In addition, they always vote themselves
large sums of money for official expense allowance that they spend to keep
their supporters loyal and happy. It is extremely hard for newcomers to unseat
incumbents because they do not have the advantage of using public funds to
support their candidacy. In other words, the election is always unfairly in
favor of the incumbents. So this argument does not seem to hold up under
careful scrutiny.
The voters must decide whether continuity is so compelling
that it would not be necessary to bring new members with fresh ideas into the
Congress.
© John R. Haglelgam, March 4, 2002
Top of page
Return to the article
outline
