#BTColumn – We need a new-look Senate

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by this author are their own and do not represent the official position of the Barbados Today.

by Peter Webster

“Democracy does not mean a dictatorship of the majority.” – His Excellency Errol Walton Barrow.

“Four people are adrift at sea in a lifeboat. They have run out of food and are on the brink of starvation. Three of them vote to eat the fourth. That is ‘dictatorship of the majority’.

It is not democracy. In a democracy, the majority gets to decide on all things except those that violate the core principles of their society. When that happens, it undermines the principles of democracy.  Checks and balances are therefore needed.” – Anon

In Barbados, the Senate is the “Upper House” of a bicameral legislature, the Parliament of Barbados. Both the Senate and the House of Assembly or Lower House constitutionally share most of the same powers; however, the lower house is dominant.

The Senate is limited in the amendments it can make to legislation passed by the House of Assembly, but the latter can still authorize legislation that is not approved by the Senate.

The Governor General appoints 12 Senators (a majority) on the advice of the Prime Minister and two on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.

The remaining seven Senators are nominated by the Governor General at his discretion to represent various religious, social, economic, or other interests in Barbados.

The purpose of our Senate is to review legislation originating in the House of Assembly and also create new legislation. However, since our Senate has not created any legislation in a long while, its main purpose is really to provide a “sober second thought” to legislation originating in the “lower house” while being dedicated to the “common good”.

In fact, one of our former senators did not know that the Senate could create legislation. Our records show that as much as 50 per cent of the legislation originating in the “Lower House” has errors of omission or commission.

There are also other possible ways of reviewing draft legislation originating in Parliament. For example, it could be done through focus groups or Town Hall meetings.

Additionally, our Senate is thought by many to be too politicized, doing little more than replicating and regurgitating the political hot air from the Lower House.

This is all too common an occurrence across the world, with the result that many countries have abolished their Senates.  Should we do the same?

The opinion has also been expressed that, “The notion of the independent senator –
who is not tied to any particular political party and who does not face the electorate – in a chamber which should represent the public, is also absurd.”

In other words, a minority should not be represented. Furthermore, “the idea of retention of seats in the Senate for special interests smacks of the highest level of snobbery”.

It is this sort of thinking that is actually the highest level of reverse snobbery because the “public majority” is already being represented in the dominant “Lower House” that does not need the Senate.

The key issue here is that our politics is based on elected representatives of people located within physical boundaries, i.e., physical constituencies.

However, our society consists of many constituencies other than the physical ones, e.g., the private sector (that is the main driver of our economy), trade unions, and over
400 civil society and other community-based organisations  – including those for doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses, policemen/women, journalists, religion, sportsmen and women,
et al., all of whom have special interests that
are not now specifically represented in our political set up.

For that matter, each and every individual in our society has special interests that vary from individual to individual. That is why our “Social Partnership” is crucially important as a place for representing these special interests, and this partnership needs a formal forum.

Rather than abolishing our Senate, can we not simply modify it by reducing its unnecessary political partisanship and making it the formal institution and forum of our Social Partnership?

In doing so, we should use the opportunity to involve a wider participation and representation from our substantial civil society and other community-based organisations. Such changes could be made within the existing framework of our constitution!

Peter Webster is a retired portfolio manager of the Caribbean Development Bank and a former senior agricultural officer in the Ministry of Agriculture.