#BTColumn –Getting our democracy right

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

by Dr. Peter Laurie

The promised constitutional reform gives us an opportunity to improve our democracy, one of the better ones in the world.

Doubt me? Just ask yourself, in how many other countries could one party have won all the seats in the legislature in two successive elections and no one, including opposition parties, questioned the results? We are blessed with a high level of public administration and social trust in Barbados. But no existing democracy is without flaws and is thus always open to improvement. And let’s get something straight: democracy is not a means to an end, it’s an end in itself. It’s a basic human right.

So, when you hear someone suggesting that autocracy might be better for economic development, you know that person is either an incipient dictator or a self-interested member of an economic elite. So, what can we do to improve Bajan democracy? There are several areas: Shoring up human rights by expanding the grounds on which it would be illegal to discriminate against citizens; a modest reform of our present electoral system of first-past-the-post; and greater accountability and transparency of those whom we elect to represent us.

Let’s not forget, the purpose of constitutional democratic provisions is essentially to ensure that those who hold and wield the power of governing remain accountable to the sovereign people. I suspect one of the more contentious and tricky issues for Barbadians might be the right balance between representative and direct democracy.

There are matters of governing that are so complex that they require careful analysis and deliberation before they become policy. That’s why we elect people to represent us. At the same time, democracy is woefully inadequate if it’s confined to people casting a ballot every four or five years. Greater ongoing public input into governance is required. We need healthy debate both in parliament and in the public square.

The old debate between direct democracy (usually by referendums, plebiscites, and citizens’ initiatives) and representative democracy (decisions made by elected legislators), hinged on the pros and cons of greater popular control over governance by allowing the people to express their opinions direct on a proposed piece of legislation, as opposed to members of the legislature having the time and space to deliberate carefully and seek the best advice of technically qualified persons.

Elected representatives may once in office, however, put the interests of privileged elites before those of ordinary citizens, treating their position as a personal entitlement rather than a public office.

In addition, direct democracy has an intrinsic value (promoting civic virtue) as well as an instrumental value (combating public apathy). A vigorous democracy requires ongoing public input.

Such public participation, however, must not undermine the principle of representation, which is equally important to a healthy democracy. The two are not really alternatives for both are essential to democratic governance.

In Barbados at present the balance is tipped in favour of representative democracy, so what we need to do is create more mechanisms for direct democracy other than the occasional town hall. But let’s be careful.

For example, the 1998 Forde Constitution Review Commission recommended a system of ‘People’s Initiatives’ whereby electors would have the right to submit to the electorate in a general election, proposals for legislative consideration by parliament. Once they were endorsed by the electorate, Parliament would be compelled to debate but not necessarily approve them. This is a sensible compromise for which a diverse group of us lobbied several years ago.

There are other ways to facilitate people having a greater say in governance. For example, we might strengthen the parliamentary committee system to facilitate engagement in continual public consultations both on matters before Parliament as well as on programmes being carried out by the executive branch.

Some have been calling for greater use of referendums in our politics. Referendums, however, should be used sparingly and they should rarely, if ever, be mandatory. Quite often, the electoral response to a referendum may be more emotional than rational, and the economic and social consequences may not be entirely grasped by voters. For example, the Brexit referendum was a disaster for Britain.

Some commentators have complained that our decision to have a Barbadian as our ceremonial head of state should have been put to a referendum. Absurd! That national debate was filled with misunderstandings over the term ‘republic’. I heard several Bajans comment that they would welcome a Barbadian as our ceremonial head of state, but they didn’t want anything to do with a republic.

The way a referendum question is phrased can also shape the result. Imagine the different outcome of two possible questions in a referendum: 1.

Do you want a Barbadian as our ceremonial head of state: yes or no? Or 2. Do you want to replace our monarchical system of government with that of a republic: yes or no? Dame Eugenia Charles, prime minister of Dominica, who wished her country to become a republic on gaining independence, observed during the 1977 Dominica constitutional conference that it was time to debunk the “old myth that a republic was synonymous with revolutions, licence without law, and arbitrary actions by state authorities.”

Sadly, the myth still endures.

Dr. Peter Laurie is a retired permanent secretary and head of the Foreign Service who once served as Barbados’ Ambassador to the United States.