How to Choose a Speaker in and Beyond the U.S?

The speaker of the house is not a minor position. It is often 'third' in succession to the presidency in many countries. A speaker is essentially the 'driver' of the legislative branch, controlling the directions that affect beyond that house, but the daily lives of your country and sometimes beyond. Your decades or centuries old constitution may need to change on choosing a speaker, but are you blindly following or the brave one who may change how speakers are chosen in and beyond your country? Which countries have the best to worst ways and why? Can you invent a better way, or at least humbly learn from others? I may have to use the Gambia and u.s as examples, the two countries I know best. However, I think all journalists and intellectuals in every country should seriously debate how to improve the process of both parliaments (Congress) and perhaps the Supreme Court. Of course I mean the leader for each branch.

Cenk of the Young Turks is suggesting Senator Bernie Sanders should be urged to run for the senate leader, which essentially is the leader of the Senate. Ironically, the complex nature of the u.s Congress has an upper and lower chamber. Somehow, the leader of the lower chamber is technically 'third in succession' in the u.s, not the majority leader of the upper chamber. However, the majority leader of the senate may be much more powerful in many issues. The vice-president is technically the leader of the senate, but even the majority leader of the senate can be more powerful than the speaker in the u.s. I will fast forward, because I am assuming many of my readers may know such facts, or can learn them through the Internet. Each party can still have a leader at the political level, but the speaker to be separate and independent.

I thank God for Cenk's suggestion because it triggers the need to write this article. However, I partially disagree with how he did it. I think he should have urged everyone to choose three people they think should lead each house, but add why the number one pick. I certainly agree with him that Bernie Sanders is more deserving and would likely be a better leader than Chuck Schumer.

Since my article is meant to inspire far beyond the Gambia and u.s, I am essentially hinting at constitutional changes in the u.s, the Gambia, and beyond. Presently, the Gambia's constitution essentially gives the president the power to choose the speaker. I do not think it is wise to have one branch of government to choose the leader of a different branch that is supposed to watch its possible wrong doings. So the Gambia may rank among the worst systems of choosing a speaker. I briefly lamented about it, and a few other people did. Considering the Gambia is going to have general elections within weeks, I think every major politician and mediahouse should repent by suggesting how and why we should change.

In a few years or decades, I think some countries should consider direct voting for a speaker. Presently, the indirect voting of the speaker means every winning house selects its leader. I would say the u.s beats the Gambia in that particular area, but can we adjust to beat the u.s and inspire Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, or even the mighty UK towards a better system.

I like the fact that the u.s constitution allows other non- elected citizens to be the leaders of the house. If leadership is very complex, time consuming, etc, then I think the constitution or law should demand that you cannot be a speaker and be a representative of a district or state. Focus on the whole country, no more sharing your time with a smaller area that elected you. The wisdom to this includes giving enough time to the Job -- So the Gambia scored a goal against the u.s and how many countries on that part? Meaning, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Bernie Sanders, or anyone, feel free to run for the speaker position, but you must resign the other position if you win. If you lose, you can remain as Senator or xyz. This can also mean the speaker will not vote unless there is a tie, reducing the work of the vice-president or Sarah Palin on a joke some may not understand.

Secret Ballot with Ranking towards three: By opening the system, countless democrats would have considered the speaker position. Secret Balloting means: 1. Bernie Sanders , 2. Jon Ossoff, 3. Barack Obama 4. Kamala Harris, 5. Sheldon Whitehouse, 6. Jimmy Kimmel 7. Ex-Governor Jarga Kebba Gigo. OK, by now, you can guess I am mixing jokes and the importance of diversity. Every Job, the most important thing is the ability to do it properly. So I am not a big fan of experience, I think experience may carry about 5 percent when I am choosing a leader. Thinking may be much more vital than experience in leadership, but non-thinkers may disagree. Still, we can have reasonable requirements like: 1. Anyone who has been a Senator or xyz for two years or more. Wisdom: I won't choose Abdul El Sayed or xyz as speaker yet, unless he passes a special exam...

2. Anyone who was a Governor of a state for more than two years. Having the experience of working with state Senators, plus little training can mean many ex-governors can be great speakers.

3. Ex-presidents or vice-presidents: Although some people do not want to serve lower, some may gladly serve a country that offered them higher. Both Obama and Kamala Harris are being paid for past services, putting them to work is not a bad idea. How furious will Trump be to see either Obama or Kamala as speaker? A partial conflict is succession. God forbid, if Trump and Vance were killed in an accident or xyz, Obama cannot be a president. So Obama can only run for Senate leadership or what adjustments can be made? Kamala Harris can be president through the speaker in how many ways? You know impeaching both Trump and Vance can bring a constitutional crisis, or am I just helping your country think big? In the u.s, the vice president is essentially the leader of the Senate, but I do not consider that smart. Midterms just said : better please. By creating a new separate Senate leader, the task can be much more than voting when there is a tie. Yes, technology can make long distance voting possible for the vice-president, but why give any odd important task to a vice-president? Will s/he read and think, or just vote based on party lines? Although ceremonial, a vice-president of even tiny Gambia can do many other things and should not be in both branches. Imagine a 50/50 Senate, and an independent leader or even AI robot that may vote differently on issues, not party lines. If the vice-president is on a trip, do you wait, or allow long distance voting? Should you allow sick Mitch McConnell or xyz to vote from a distance without three doctors confirming what?

Open Ballot: The secret Ballot is to help members of congress/parliament vote their conscience, not friendship and minimise nasty battles... There are other advantages to secret ballot, including the raising of candidates who may run. After the top three are selected, voting openly may help.

Term Limit: The number one term limit of a speaker should be through the general population -- meaning your party must win. Once chosen, party winning should mean continuing or how do we hold them to account? However, I think having other term limits for the speaker, even if your party wins, can be great.

Experience Issue: Ex-speakers can have good documentations and serve as advisors to new speakers. Based on my requirements/suggestions, mayors may not qualify, but do you think Mamdani can learn fast? If he or anyone passes the special exam and voluntary services, the competition is can you convince the most lawmakers, not ordinary voters?

Cross Party Voting: The corrupt two party system of the u.s makes cross party voting hard. However, we all understand the majority party should likely choose a leader. So the nomination can always start with the winners. First voting can also be around party lines. In which scenarios and how should we allow other parties to vote in seeking the speaker's position ? If you cannot get 75% of your party and/or 50% of the total house/parliament, then cross party should be tolerated? Who remembers how the Republicans struggled to vote for a speaker? A speaker who is liked by few or many members of the other parties can be a huge plus. Picture the u.s, but also outside the u.s. Just for the sake of an example, let's say the Gambia's parliament has 100 members -- the law can say you must get 50% of the members of Parliament. NPP or xyz winning the majority gives NPP a speaker's opportunity. If NPP or xyz has 51 members, then even two members should be able to trigger cross party voting at what point? Imagine if the NPP has 33 members and still has the largest share. Your country's law can say after three voting runs. Or it can say: it is one parliament and one country. So other minority members can vote for speakership, but not nominate, if there is a stalemate. I think such things can be helpful, encourage more working together. The person ahead within a party may not necessarily win if all members of Parliament/congress vote.

In a nutshell, both the law and the public should name three people they think should be the speaker and/or potential president if disaster happens. Then our age demands better laws than what we inherited. Campaign on it and/or sponsor private bills towards constitutional changes on how speakers are chosen.

Voluntary Services and Exams: The law can also require a special exam to become a speaker, including some voluntary services. For example, countless Americans can certainly read a book to pass an exam about being a speaker than ex-governor Sarah Palin's understanding of the vice-president's position. Now that we can have a special office for the position, it means interested people can volunteer after passing the exam. Breaking News: Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, Robert Dinero, and Stephen Colbert passed the speakership exams, did 3 months voluntary internship in the office of the federal or state level speaker, thus are qualified to contest for the speakership? OK! That may cause one president to have a heart attack or may send me a drone for too many good suggestions... I seriously think the system of leadership should be more open. An ex-judge, independent than Bernie Sanders, may even be a better speaker (referee) than average career politicians. If Congress or Parliament can do days or weeks of investigation to choose a judge or xyz over our heads, then they should be able to do similar to choose their own leader, but inadvertently our leader too. The speaker of the u.s can affect Iran, the Gambia, and beyond. Similarly, the speaker of even tiny Gambia can affect many countries, including if s/he causes problems that destabilise our country to cause refugees or worse. So if international or common sense ranking says: the Gambia, Ghana, or xyz is among the worst countries in how they choose speakers, then our journalists, politicians, etc may debate the pros and cons in our system and beyond. Do not expect President Barrow, Tinubu, Mahama, etc to voluntarily reduce the powers they inherited from colonial days or early post colonial days. Our system was chosen when less than 25% of Gambians were literate. So do not squarely blame Barrow for choosing a questionable speaker and vice speaker, but rather blame Ousainou Darboe and others for not changing certain things within months after Jammeh. They refused to even make attempts. So I am not happy with president Barrow, but I suspect the opposition may be much worse. Do we even need a vice-speaker, or is it just a political position we allowed? How well do they consult each other, or can they vote differently in a tie in your country? Maybe having a vice-speaker can help the u.s, if book writing after office brings new conflicts from behind the scenes?

Supreme Court: A similar process can be for the supreme Court-- by having a certain level of judges in and outside the supreme Court to choose the leader of the supreme Court makes sense. Again, leadership tends to require time and special tasks. By reducing the work of Justice Roberts as an example, the Supreme Court may be able to accept more cases, more balance, and speed up work. We can also have a term limit for that position and voting powers if there is a tie between the judges. It can be as robust as one term limit, and the work they do can help determine if they get nominated to become supreme court Judges. Or to have only early retired supreme Court judges or high court judges to serve as such leaders. I do support having an age limit on all sensitive positions , including the supreme Court. Because there is often a window of early retirement, a person who retires at 55 to 65, but the age limit says 70 or 75 may serve in such.

We do not have to copy the u.s or any country, but think and learn from others where need be. May God bless Showlove Trinity: let's learn, let's work, let's have fun.

By Jarga Kebba Gigo
An Activist and Transformer
Author of Juts Quhr-aahn