Will this idea of a part-time legislature fly?

Considering how popular Rep. Clyde Norita’s idea of a part-time Legislature is, it’s almost a sure bet that this neophyte congressman is a shoo-in for next year’s election. He has certainly generated the right vibe among the voting public with this concept of a pared down Legislature that is projected to save the CNMI government $3.2 million annually. During a recent public hearing, the initiative received quite a number of positive comments from a generally receptive public that has become disenchanted over the millions of dollars being spent annually to maintain the bicameral chamber. That, however, is only half the ballgame.

In point of fact, popularity has almost got nothing to do with the passage of measures or the adoption of initiatives. Unlike elections, the lawmaking process involves complex dynamics of which popularity and public support plays almost a minuscule role, particularly with this initiative, which would strip lawmakers of the cushy jobs they have landed for themselves and the handsome remuneration package that comes with it. (True, the concept brings the real meaning of the word “public service” to the fore but who would want to do that, right?)

Even “rightness” has got nothing to do with it. Everybody knows, even the lawmakers themselves, that the CNMI government spends too much for its upkeep. It is top-heavy in that it does not only has too many bosses but there is also too much money going to those in plum positions and too little going toward the rank-and-file. Belt-tightening as a practice has always been borne by those on the low end of the civil service totem pole when in concept it should be spread out evenly across the broad spectrum of government service. At the same time, for such a small population, the CNMI has too big a legislature and too big a government—a luxury it could ill afford in a time of economic want.

No, “rightness” has nothing to do with it. More than any other, it is political will that will move Norita’s legislation forward. It is the collective will of lawmakers and the Executive Branch that must first be harnessed if this initiative is to go through. They must first find it among themselves the strength to carry this bill through the process despite the inherent sacrifice it will demand of them when the initiative succeeds.

The deafening silence, however, with which most lawmakers met Norita’s initiative is not very encouraging. Often, politicians are wont to scramble among themselves to pontificate and air their opinions to all and sundry about controversial or popular pieces of legislation but the pregnant silence that has greeted the introduction of Norita’s measure is a very meaningful—if dismaying—indicator of the chances of this bill making it to next year’s ballot. Except for Norita himself, you don’t really hear much from other lawmakers about their opinion of the measure.

History is also a very good indicator of where this bill might be headed. A look back at previous legislatures would show that this is not the first time that such an idea came up. Ever since the economic crunch hit the islands in the latter part of the 90s, similar ideas in different forms have been floated but nothing came out of them. I remember the concept of a unicameral legislature being discussed in the narrow halls of the Legislature during the 12th and 13th Legislature but they were nothing more than academic discussions of something that had no chance whatsoever of being passed into law. Cynical as it may sound, one is tempted to predict that this latest reincarnation in the form of Norita’s bill will inevitably meet a similar fate.

I highly doubt, though, if lawmakers will vociferously oppose the measure, judging by the popularity of the idea among the general populace. Not if they have any ambitions of being re-elected. No, there will be no speaking out against it, no protestations before the TV cameras, no letters to the editor trashing the measure; it will be more of a silent digging in of the heels, much like an ugly spectacle that you would not look at in the hopes that it would go away by itself. After all, in the hustle and bustle of everyday lawmaking, it is easy for bills to get lost, get stuck in committees, get filed, etc.

No, a suitable compromise must be achieved if we are to get anywhere near the intent of this bill, which is to save the government a bundle of money. Norita’s introduction of the measure is already an achievement in itself but it demands too much of a sacrifice from lawmakers. NMC professor Sam McPhetres was right; there is just too much ancillary services demanded of lawmakers and it would take a while to teach people that lawmakers are there to make laws, not to provide funeral funds, tents, and jobs. It would be better if lawmakers revisit the idea of cutting down their number and probably setting up a unicameral Legislature. Of course that would mean revisiting the Covenant to ensure equal representation for Tinian and Rota but if there is political will, I’m sure a way can be found.

(The views expressed are strictly that of the author. Vallejera is the editor of the Saipan Tribune.)