Proposed Parliament more Democratic?

07.AUG.09

Editor: We are told and sold the idea that the proposed new parliament will reflect the deepening of our democracy. Parnel R. Campbell says so, along with the members of the House who support the Government. These pundits of the new proposed constitution want us to believe that the very make-up of parliament under the proposed arrangement will be based on the people’s wishes when we go out and vote.{{more}} When I heard that reasoning, I went to look to see how correct it is. Could it be that on this point the political pundits think we’re stupid too?

The readers will know, from reading the draft constitution, that Parliament will consist of 17 elected representatives and 10 party representatives who are not elected. These two groups of representatives will be divided among the different parties in Parliament. According to P. R. Campbell in his document (A Brief Summary of the Main Proposals in the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution 2009), “All members of Parliament will have equal status.” Para 28.

In that same paragraph he went on to state that it does not matter the means by which you enter parliament, whether by election at the polls or selection from a party list, you will enjoy the same status. He called this system “fairer” and “more democratic”. Fairer and more democratic? Hardly!

You see, democracy entails the people’s voice, a people’s ability to choose for themselves who they want to govern them and the form of Government by which they think they can be best governed. In this context it is reflected in the people’s choice of persons to represent them in the house of Parliament. If you are increasing the number of unelected persons who can enter parliament and at the same time giving them powers equal to those who the people choose to represent them, that cannot be fairer and more democratic! Only if you think we’re stupid again.

Here are some of my observations when I reflect on this particular proposed change:

(1) 10 persons will be seated in parliament who are not elected by the people.

(2) These 10 persons will have equal status (voting rights, etc) as those elected by the people.

(3) Some persons on the party lists are more guaranteed a seat in Parliament than those who run for elections (especially if the case will be where the first name on the list will be chosen first to make up parliament at the end of an election). Constituency Representatives have to depend on votes to gain seats.

(4) The unelected 10 persons can vote on all bills and motions, including bills to amend our constitution and motions of no confidence.

(5) Therefore, in regards to these 10 representatives, one cannot say that power truly belongs to the people since the people never choose to put them there.

(6) This is not an improvement above our current system of Parliamentary representatives and senators. Here’s why I conclude thus:

(a) Currently, senators are not added to the ELECTED representatives to form Government or Opposition, they are chosen after Government is formed. No UNELECTED persons are added to the elected to determine Government. That is democracy.

(b) Senators are not allowed to vote on bills related to amending our constitution, since the people never vested them with such great powers in any election. Here the people maintain their Sovereignty and exercise their “sovereign” will through ELECTED representatives. Democracy again!

(c) The proposed system reverses the above: a number of UNELECTED members are added to the number of ELECTED members to determine which party forms Government and which forms Opposition. Further, the UNELECTED members can vote on bills relating to amending our constitution, though the people never give them such sacred power. This weakens the people’s power in Parliament and is not more democratic as Campbell proposed!

So what do we have here? We have a proposal where four more persons who are on a party list will be placed in Parliament, with more powers than the current senators have. More powers? To vote on things the current senators can’t? Yes! And both are unelected/selected persons! How is this more democratic? We’re not stupid! How is this fairer? Fairer to whom? The people? We have no choice and control over who sits in a seat via the party list and these people will be voting on matters most sacred to us! And you call that more democratic? C’mon Mr. Campbell…we’re not stupid.

I do not believe the party representatives will truly represent the people of this country as they should. They are placed in parliament by means of a political party and not by being voted in by the people. Their first act of allegiance is owed to the party who placed them there and they will more likely than not push the agenda of their party even where it may not be good for the people. On the other hand, constituency representatives owe an account to the people who put them there and will likely see their first act of loyalty as being to the people and the people’s best interest. This is how it I see it. They are accountable directly to the true Sovereign who has the power to remove them in an election.

I do not buy what P. R. Campbell and his political pundits are trying to sell me on this matter. It is old expired goods packaged in a way to insult us again. We still call for fully representative house and a separate senate to ensure proper checks and balance. Don’t peddle any innovative nonsense that is not better than our current system. We’re not stupid as they think we are! We know better.

Shefflorn Ballantyne