Anti-defection bill: Senator warns against silencing MPs

Opposition Senator Karina Goodridge warned on Friday that proposed legislation to prevent MPs from switching parties could have the unintended effect of stifling internal dissent and empowering political leaders to silence critics within their own ranks

As the Senate debated the constitutional amendment to prevent MPs from defecting without triggering a by-election, Senator Goodridge, leader of the Friends of Democracy party, quoted William Shakespeare: “There’s nothing good or bad, but it’s the thinking that makes it so.”

She added: “The basis of that submission is to state that your perception will shape your reality.”

Turning to the Constitution, she argued that the proposed amendment must be measured against the fundamental rights already enshrined in law. Citing Chapter 3, Section 11 of the Bill of Rights, Senator Goodridge reminded the chamber that “every person in Barbados is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual … whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, he or she has a right to political opinion. That is to be enjoyed. That is not to be snatched away, even by an amendment”.

Referring specifically to subsection (d), she added: “Freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association … a Member of Parliament should enjoy freedom of association. They should enjoy having political opinion.”

She also pointed to Section 21, which states: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and association … his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties, or to form or belong to trade unions or other associations for the protection of its interests.”

Senator Goodridge argued that these provisions must be carefully considered before lawmakers move to amend the supreme law. She further referenced the parliamentary reform commission’s report, noting that it recommended maintaining the current framework. “They are not going to restrict, they did not agree with restricting an individual from crossing,” she said.

Questioning the urgency of the measure, the senator asked: “Do we really suffer that much from political instability, or is it that we just have had some instances where individuals had crossed the floor, and then now, we are contemplating an amendment to the Constitution?

“I would be polite and say it seems rushed. It seems as though we are moving swiftly and in a hurry. Without proper justification.”

Senator Goodridge said the administration had argued that the legislation was necessary to ensure political stability and uphold democracy, but stressed that such a bill could be used to quell dissent.

“We have to ensure that when an individual is expelled, that that element of things is not abused by political parties. We cannot allow the elected candidate who decides to defect or cross the floor to be abused, and we cannot allow political parties to weaponise it.”

But speaking as a lawyer, she maintained that the bill required refinement: “I will recommend that there should be certain amendments made and room for reform, so that perhaps the legislation will not be vague in any way, will not be conflicting or ambiguous in any form or fashion.”