EDITORIAL: THE NEED FOR REFORM
In recent years there has been much talk about the need for parliamentary reform in this country, but in spite of the talk, little has been done to actually effect such change.
Those calls for change were perhaps heard even louder in the dying days of the last Administration in 2018, when the then Opposition was anxious for a General Election to be called. Such calls were also made in 2013, when the election was held five years and one month after the January 2008 election.
On both occasions the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) boycotted Parliament, arguing that the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) had overstayed its welcome. While an excellent political strategy, what many people did not understand was that a government has three months after the five-year anniversary of its election win to call an election. The DLP was therefore in its right to wait to call elections, once Barbadians made their way to the polls by June when the election was constitutionally due.
What ensued in those months leading up to the election were calls for a fixed date for elections – as is the case in some countries like the United States – and we well remember one Opposition Member of Parliament at the time putting the case that setting the date of the election should not be the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister. It appeared to be an idea that the BLP itself was pushing, so much so that in its 2018 manifesto under the heading ‘Giving Bajans a Greater Say in National Affairs’, listed among the points was obtaining the views of the public on issues such as Parliamentary Reform, fixed dates for elections and term limits for Prime Ministers.
One has to wonder if now that it is the Government, whether engaging the public on such matters is still a priority for that political party. It is often said that a party’s manifesto is a social contract with the people, and while it can be appreciated that its time in office thus far has not been at all what was expected, with the overwhelming majority that it has in the House of Assembly, there can be no denying that now is the time to make any sweeping and fundamental changes to the way business is done.
That certainly was the argument made by Leader of the Opposition, Bishop Joseph Atherley, last month, contending that having a fixed date for elections, while removing the current prerogative of the Prime Minister to choose, would improve the “practice of our politics and the enhancement of our democratic architecture”. If we draw then on the Bishop’s words, one has to question if the Government of the day did not miss out on the opportunity at the beginning of its term, to ensure that democracy truly reigned. The winning of all the seats in the House of Assembly was never seen before – we came close in 1986 when the BLP only secured three of the 27 seats, and again in 1999, when the tables turned and it was the DLP which only snagged two of the 28 seats.
In May 2018 when the BLP won all 30 seats there was obviously concern about how things would work, for there is a role for an Opposition, which is to keep a Government on its toes. When Bishop Atherley defected from the BLP to take up the post as Leader of the Opposition, and became the dissenting voice necessary to keep democracy alive, it put a bandage on the problem, but did not properly address it.
It is hoped that before the next General Election, constitutionally due in 2023, that the Government will seek to put provisions in place if such a scenario were to occur again. That could include some form of proportional representation as is done in Guyana and Finland, where the goal is to eliminate the inequity often criticised in majoritarian systems.