Opposition not about 18-year-old Senate pick, but about process to amend Constitution

By Kareem Smith

The outrage directed at this country’s Independent senators for opposing key constitutional amendments last week is grossly misplaced.

So says Head of the Department of Government, Sociology, Social Work and Psychology at the UWI Dr Kristina Hinds, who believes that a meaningful analysis of the process that ended with no avenues for Khaleel Kothdiwala and/or two potential Democratic Labour Party representatives to enter the Senate is being misrepresented.

“I do not understand why the discussion in the Senate is being portrayed as if it were a rejection of an 18-year-old being a senator because I did not hear that in the debate,” Dr Hinds told Barbados TODAY.

“All of them agreed with that, but I think the broader concern is that these amendments should be part of a wider constitutional reform process and we have been told that such a process will happen this year.

“So all of these matters should be decided at that level, preferably with national consultation. I didn’t hear an outright rejection of the amendments in terms of the substance of the amendments. What was rejected was the process,” she added.

The constitutional amendments tabled in the Upper House sought to provide opposition representation in the senate in the absence of an opposition leader. The amendments would also have reduced the minimum age to sit as an elected representative or senator from 21 to 18.

Five independent senators said during the debate, among other things, both amendments could be made during the year-long process of consultation on the new republic constitution promised by Prime Minister Mia Mottley.

On Saturday, PM Mottley released a statement indicating that Kothdiwala, 18, who she initially said would take up the seat, would be unable to do so on this occasion, because of a “clear indication by independent senators that they would not have supported the measure”.

Since then, former UWI political science lecturer Dr George Belle charged that independent senators “should be independent” and should not be “an instrument of frustration of a majority Government”. Meanwhile, Peter Wickham, a political scientist, accused the independent senators of “denying young people a voice”.

But in defence of the senators appointed by President Dame Sandra Mason, Dr Hinds said she was deeply concerned about the direction the current discussion has taken.

“If I’m being completely honest, I am very uncomfortable with the way the discussion around this is proceeding, because I think it misrepresents the debate in the Senate in a way that serves a particular purpose, to make people look as if they have rejected an 18-year-old and young people, and that is not what I heard in there,” said Dr Hinds.

Independent Senator Kevin Boyce explained that there were some “challenges” with the amendments which “require further discussion, dialogue and clarification in a process of active citizenry”.

He noted that the Constitution already sets out a process for the appointment of senators in the absence of an opposition leader and he suggested that the decision to amend to allow an 18-year-old to sit in either House of Parliament would not impact the business of the government and could therefore wait for the wider process of consultation to occur.

Senator the Reverend Dr John Rogers noted that the amendments make no provision for circumstances where a sitting MP crosses the floor to become opposition leader, but two opposition senators had already been chosen from the political party with the second highest number of votes.

Their sentiments were echoed by Senator Lindell Nurse, Senator Christopher Maynard and Senator Crystal Drakes. While none of the Independent senators opposed the inclusion of an 18-year-old in principle, Drakes said the age for MPs should continue to be 21 but an 18-year-old should be allowed to be appointed to the Senate.

“The record does not show that anyone in there would not support a senator at age 18,” said Dr Hinds.

“I also did not hear an outright rejection of the two seats being given to the party that won the second-highest quantity of votes, but there were questions raised about how it should be done, what the implications might be and in general, whether all of this is not better-suited to the constitutional reform process than a simple constitutional amendment.

“There seems to be the need for a wider discussion about the constitutional amendments, about whether it should be done in this piece-by-piece way or whether we should carry all of this to the constitutional reform process and fix the constitution all at once.

“I think we can still have an 18-year-old becoming a senator, but after we have the constitutional reform process,” she added.

Political analyst Devaron Bruce said the developments caught him by surprise and noted that while he understands some of the arguments being raised, he does not see an issue with the amendment.

“I think the age difference is really inconsequential and I am not in objection towards that. I am not sure whether it is a missed opportunity per se, because we would in essence be saying that they aren’t other persons within the current parameters, that being the age limit of 21, who are able to serve. I could think about many individuals who can.

“It is an unfortunate circumstance for Kothdiwala, but certainly not reflective of the absence of other individuals who could have a similar impact within the Senate who are also young. Interestingly enough, I think that one of the major considerations must be that the Democratic Labour Party finds itself in a circumstance where the amendment to the constitution no longer favours them. So I think that is what one of the key considerations must be regarding the developments on the matter and in essence we have to see whether the President will act given the piece of legislation has now been pulled.” kareemsmith@barbadostoday.bb