#BTColumn – Maybe small, but not too young at all!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

by Rahym Augustin-Joseph

For yet another time, the Prime Minister of Barbados, Hon. Mia Amor Mottley, announced her administration’s historic intention to amend the Constitution of Barbados to permit 18-year- old Khaleel Kothdiwala to serve as a Senator in the House of Assembly in Barbados.

Prior to the articulation of this intention by the Prime Minister, the requirements for one to be appointed a Senator was that they must be 21 years old. This historic announcement sought to rectify the anomaly that one must be 18 years old to vote, but that being 18 years old was insufficient for them to represent people.

The decision was met by young people and citizens across the Caribbean and the world with a deep sense of admiration as Prime Minister Mottley signalled her intention to deepen our democracy by allowing young people to be active participants in the decision making of their country.

However, on Friday 18th March 2022, some of the Independent Senators of the Barbados Parliament, essentially, argued that 18 years old was too young to lead and raised reservations about the Constitutional Amendments.

This caused Hon. Lisa Cummins, Leader of Government Business in the Senate to reconsider a Bill which sought to strengthen and deepen the democratic fabric of Barbados.

Young people in Barbados and across the Commonwealth Caribbean should therefore pay keen attention to the contributions made within the House last week, as I particularly take umbrage to some of the sentiments shared by some of the Independent Senators of which I will unpack
and dissect.

I must from the outset however, dispel a prevailing view, that we must assess the view of the Independent Senators based on their inability to support the government. They are called independent for that very reason. Instead, we must analyse their commentary for its own content which I find to be troubling.

It is no secret that representation of people and statecraft requires experience, because of the extent of the responsibilities, power and how relevant decisions taken can impact people’s lives.

Essentially, statecraft, is not ‘child’s play.’ However, the ranking method for political office adopted by Senator Drakes raises serious ideological concern. The Senator essentially argued that intellect and books can only get one so far and that it is real life experience which forms the basis for political representation.

It must be an equal combination of both criteria with none outweighing the other especially in the context of the offerings of our education system. It is therefore perplexing when members of older age demographics direct young people to gain experience, and subtly neglect the fact that one must start somewhere.

The rigid requirement for experience as a criterion for political office should not always debar one from an opportunity. Moreover, our ‘undemocratic’ exercise of representative democracy within our Ecco chambers should not be the sole determinant of the requirements, as in the end it is the people who should decide whether they vote for experience or intellect or the combination of both.

In the case of an18 year old, the Attorney General Hon. Dale Marshall, Senator John King and Prime Minister Mottley are therefore correct when they outlined ad nauseam, the incongruences and inconsistencies of the age which allow a range of enjoyment including driving, smoking, drinking and many more deleterious enjoyments, but debars others which allow for active citizenship within their respective countries.

The probing question therefore is ‘Where are young people supposed to gain the experience if the doors of opportunity are constantly being closed?’ Moreover, the lived experiences during the pandemic and even prior should not be devalued in replacement of a one size fits all criteria of experience created by members of the Senate.

Where are they supposed to learn the practices of statecraft if the goal post for political office continues to shift and contradict the established societal rules articulated eloquently by calypsonian Gypsy who notes that “Little Black Boys should go to school and learn, should show some concern as education is the key to get you off the street and off poverty?” It reminds young people freshly graduated from The UWI Cave Hill Campus of the job applications which they are prohibited from because they need ten years’ experience. Where are they supposed to get it from?

What I think the Independent Senators should have suggested, in addition to supporting this historic Amendment, is the further democratization of state affairs to include young people as equal partners of development across Statutory Boards, People’s Assemblies, Political Parties, NGOs, A transformed Youth Parliament, CSOs, BYDC among other developmental agencies in accordance with a refined National Youth Policy which ensures the necessary human and financial staffing to carry out effective youth development programming. Further, that the education system must reinvent itself to ensure that it creates the enabling environment for students to receive multiple intelligences which make them ‘fit’ for political office in tandem with the requirements as mentioned by Senator John King.

Essentially, Franklin Roosevelt’s words must gain practical and political traction and reality when he noted that “We cannot build a future for our youth, but we must build our youth for the future.”

This suggests, that as opposed to rejecting this Amendment which seeks to create an enabling environment for young people to effectively participate in the governance of their country and represent the interests of their demographic within the Parliament, we should seek to do the above in tandem with the reduction of the age barrier.

We should not utilise our own naïve anecdotal experiences of when we were 18 to adjudicate upon others but recognise that as Senator Andwele Boyce noted that we and our Constitution must grow together if we are to ensure that it does not become a last will and testament.

Moreover, I hoped that the Independent Senators because of their strategic democratic placement would have given us the undergirded psychosocial and other deep-rooted reasons which informed the framers of the Constitution to ensure that the age requirement starts at 21 years old.

Failure to do that leaves us in the limbo of baseless arguments such as maturity and other variables which in no way connect to the philosophical shift.

Who knows, it may have very well been Khaleel who spearheads this renewed vision for active youth engagement had the process been supported? Are we aware of global youth champions such as Greta Thunberg who continues to light the torch against climate injustices? Are the opposers of the motion inadvertently saying to Khaleel, that I had to wait my turn and you should too?

Are they not aware of the level of intellectual vigour and advocacy that young Mr. Khaleel has done in relation to CXC Examinations and the issues presented therein which justifies the intention to provide him with an even greater platform to advocate?

It was also baffling the entangled web in which Senator Drakes found herself wherein she argued that she does not necessarily disagree with the Constitutional Amendment to reduce the age for a Senate appointment which is an unelected position.

Instead, what she found difficulty in accepting was any conversation which includes the removal of the barrier for one to stand for an election and be elected within the lower house if they are 18 years old. It would be interesting to see what the views would be if they would be brought forward again for reconsideration by separating the respective amendments.

It is therefore interesting, the extent to which one can support an individual being selected by a smaller number of people and not gaining greater legitimacy in the presence of an ‘age and lack of experience barrier’ in a general election. It is not as if the decision would have been to also provide Mr. Kothdiwala with a Ministerial portfolio wherein the arguments presented about lack of experience could then be deemed as valid.

What is wrong with him gaining the experience while being a Government Senator seeing the inner-workings of the processes of state affairs? What is wrong with the grooming process which is incidental to political office? Again, these seem foreign because we continue to utilize our own anecdotal experience as a judging criterion for Khaleel who has been born and bred within the bowels of politics.

The issues of campaign financing which were brought up as a justification to not support the amendment as we need to protect young people from vulnerability are no more relevant than they have been for ‘older politicians’.

However, susceptibility to bribery and other forms of electoral misconduct, is not a symptom of age but of character. These issues need to be dealt with separately through stronger institutional mechanisms and increasing of political consciousness of the masses and should not be a factor in rejecting this amendment.

I agree that there needs to be protection of young people from the quagmire of tribalism which is a perennial characteristic of our political system. However, the debate was devoid of solutions which were present in other motions before the House to reduce the victimisation, nepotism and ‘nastiness’ present within our political system.

The opportunity therefore presented itself to start the process of reshaping the political culture of the country to one which remains a competitive political system, but also reduces the undemocratic features of Caribbean life which continues to debar active citizenship by young people wherein areas of societal development are seen to be exclusive to an elite class and demographic.

The opportunity, if not reeked with tokenism and taken with the level of seriousness it deserves would have been a milestone in ensuring that young people’s views are represented and dispense with the notion of needing to be protected from within the chamber and instead “write their names on history’s page, with expectations great, as strict guardians of their heritage, and firm craftsmen of their fate.”

Those who raised the objections above against the amendments seemed to be unaware of the philosophical underpinning of these amendments which took into consideration the enabling and wider youth developmental governance structures and impediments.

It sought to start the process of dealing with an enduring feature of our political systems wherein young people continue to be underrepresented across numerous accepted democratic benchmarks when contextualised against their numerical presence.

This common view was accentuated in the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Report in 2016 which notes that, 73 per cent of countries restrict young people from running for office with minimum age requirements for candidacy which are higher than the voting age.

It is because of their numerical presence, vulnerability and the fact that they are inheritors of the future, that young people like Khaleel must have an enabling environment where they can serve as active decision-makers from the earliest possible age.

They must not continue to operate from the margins of our developmental trajectory especially, in the context of a deformed governance culture and limited opportunities to facilitate youth engagement and active citizenship.

Moreover, it sought to signal the process of repudiating the prevailing view among young people actualized through voter apathy and a lack of connection to their countries that politics is not about duty but about “getting rich on the backs of people and looking after your personal and familial interests.”

It was about ensuring that we dismantle the myriad forms of inequality which affect young people through deeply engrained sociocultural patterns which normalise social hierarchies and an unequal access to political decision-making.

However, young people should not view this ‘loss’ and continued robust debate in the Senate as a loss, but as democracy in action. As a matter of fact, we should be cognisant that any Constitutional Reform exercise which seeks to deepen our democracies must have national support to ensure that it passes the inbuilt requirements in the house.

It is my view that some of those who do not support the Constitutional Amendment for the removal of the age barrier for the reasons I addressed above should reflect on the lyrics of 11- year-old Machel Montano’s famous “Too Young to Soca” in 1986 which he sang at the Calypso Monarch Competition, a designated space that hitherto had not been considered for children after his writing of The Letter.

Machel was clearly speaking to their ideological dispositions when he sang: “I say I coming out hot, to show people what I got, and they start with critical comment. They say I’m a little boy, I’m too young to sing [lead] I may be too small, but I’m not too young at all, They calling me a baby, They say it is plain to see, I ain’t got the ability, to perform for them in party, they say I should be in school, learning Algebra and thing, they say I’m too young in age, to take such a risky chance, They say I too young to soca [lead] Oh-Oh- Oh they making joke, I may be small but I’m not too young at all!”

Rahym Augustin-Joseph is a 2nd year student of the UWI Cave Hill Campus from St. Lucia reading for a double major in Political Science and Law and member of the Cave Hill Guild of Students Council. While Augustin-Joseph is a member of the Guild of Students Council 2021-2022, these views are not affiliated to this organization and are his own. Rahym Augustin-Joseph can be reached via rahymrjoseph9@gmail.com.