DLP advised taking Senate seats only opportunity for representation in parliament

The House of Assembly will meet on Tuesday to debate controversial amendments to the Constitution that will allow the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) an opportunity to have two seats in the Senate, along with 18-year-old Khaleel Kothdiwala.

And despite swirling questions about the legality of the Government’s intended actions, an outspoken political science university lecturer believes that in the absence of a legal challenge, the DLP would be wise to accept the gesture.

“It would be useful for the DLP to have the two seats. I don’t know if they need them, but it would be useful for them to have some say in the legislative process,” Dr Kristina Hinds told Barbados TODAY.

“But outside of that, I maintain that it is not the Prime Minister’s call and that has been my view from the beginning. The reason that I say this is because, as much as the Prime Minister is making a gesture for the benefit of democracy, the President, in my estimation, has the ability to nominate the requisite number of senators and we can proceed from there. If at that point there is a constitutional amendment, that is another thing. But I don’t know if this is necessary,” Hinds, the head of the Department of Government, Sociology, Social Work and Psychology contended.

The proposed amendments seek to repeal and replace Sections 37, 43 and 75 of the Constitution.

According to the draft amendment, the new Section 37 will read that “any person who at the date of his appointment is a citizen of Barbados of the age of 18 years or upwards shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator”. The Section 43 amendment is similar.

Section 75 (1) addresses a “vacancy in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition”. It states that where there is no Leader of the Opposition, the reference would be to the political party which obtained the highest number of votes in the general election.

It further states: “Where the opposing political party which obtained the highest number of votes in the general election following the dissolution of Parliament fails or refuses to advise or facilitate consultation with the President, the Prime Minister, or any other person… the President, the Prime Minister or that other person shall seek the advice of or consult with the opposing political party that received the next highest number of votes in succession….”

Over the last week, the proposal has caused robust dialogue, particularly within the legal fraternity, with some, like Garth Patterson, Q.C contending that the Constitution had already made it clear that under the circumstances, the Senate seats should be chosen at the President’s discretion. Patterson also argued that with three Senate seats still vacant, the Upper House was not properly constituted and therefore could not be convened.

However, attorney-at-law Gregory Nicholls quoted sections of the Constitution which, in his interpretation, suggest that the Senate could be convened as currently composed.

Prime Minister Mottley last Friday said despite DLP interim president Steve Blackett’s rejection of the offer, Government would move ahead with the amendments.

However, Trecia Watson, another prominent lawyer, took to social media raising questions about the proposed legislation, including the fact that neither the country’s electoral laws nor the Constitution recognises political parties.

“Will legislation be tabled immediately to require registration and regulation of political parties? If not, why not, since the Government wishes operation of the highest law of the land to in part be dependent on the existence and functioning of political parties. What then are political parties’ rights and obligations under the law?” asked Watson.

“What if the political club members cannot agree on the person to be consulted by the President or the PM and they say ‘hold strain, we sorting it out’? Is that a refusal or failure to advise?” she further queried.

Dr Hinds concurred, reiterating that a more holistic process of political reform would have been a better approach.

“Our system is not really about political parties and that is why when you go to the polls, you see names, you don’t see party affiliations. It just so happens that the candidates that we generally choose are affiliated with political parties,” she said.

“It would be very difficult for the Constitution to now define political parties because I don’t know that there is anywhere in our legislative framework or policy framework that defines what a political party is. So, a political party is nothing, that, in my understanding, has legal status or standing or is registered or anything of the sort. So I find it to be a very odd addition that is being put there for a particular purpose. Well-meaning as it may be, it is out of step with the Constitution and it is too hasty because we have not sorted out for ourselves what is a political party.”

Nevertheless, Hinds believes the current climate in the country would facilitate the seats being passed and, as a result, Dr Hinds believes the DLP should accept them and make the selections themselves.

“That is a decision for them to make internally, based on whatever direction they would want the party to go. That is something they would have to work out for themselves. I would just advise them to choose very wisely because they are not going to have a Leader of the Opposition,” said Dr Hinds.

“This is the only say that you’re going to have in the legislative process and it is the only opportunity that you’re going to have to show people that the party remains relevant and could be an option in the next five years or whenever an election is called,” she added.  kareemsmith@barbadostoday.bb