Senator Rogers warns against ‘power grab’

Independent Senator Reverend Dr John Rogers has cautioned that proposed constitutional amendments could hand excessive control to political parties at the expense of voters, describing the move to penalise “floor crossing” as a potential “power grab” that threatens the spirit of Barbados’s democracy.

Describing the legislation as a “constitutional conundrum”, Senator Rogers argued that the bill risks transforming Barbados’ stable democracy into an adversarial “mock sport” where the electorate’s true representatives are reduced to “pawns of an elite political class”.

The crux of Senator Senator Rogers’s opposition lies in the proposed Section 45(1)(h) of the Constitution. This clause would vacate the seat of any MP who is expelled by their party or voluntarily leaves it. Senator Rogers contended that this effectively gives political parties — which he termed “ghost institutions” — the power to override the will of the voters.

He noted that while the Constitution recognises the right to associate with parties, it does not define their internal rules or tenets.

“The danger in Section 45(1)(h) is that it gives a political party which the Constitution does not know — a ghost institution to the Constitution — the right to remove a seated MP in accordance with its own tenets,” Senator Rogers said.

He further emphasised the distinction between a candidate and a representative, noting that “political parties do not produce representatives; they present candidates to the electorate. Once the candidate is chosen, he ceases to be a candidate of the political party and becomes a representative of the people.”

The senator pointed out that both the Parliamentary Reform Commission and the Constitutional Reform Commission reported majority positions in favour of maintaining the status quo. He highlighted that these commissions view the right to cross the floor as a vital element of a democratic opposition.

“The commission does not support any barrier to or restriction on a Member of Parliament crossing the floor,” Senator Rogers said, quoting the reform reports. “There is no groundswell from the people for this apparent urgent amendment. Why so urgently? Will this fix solve the real major issues of governance confronting this parliament?”

Senator Rogers cited the 2003 Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003), a non-binding, Commonwealthwide agreement on governance principles later accepted by then prime minister Owen Arthur, which suggested that the expulsion of members for floor crossing should be viewed as a possible infringement of parliamentary independence.

The Anglican cleric and independent lawmaker cautioned the chamber to prepare for a future where a less benevolent leadership might take the reins.

“We always have to prepare for Exodus 1 and verse 8: there arose a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph,” Senator Rogers warned. “There may arise a political party that don’t care about anything we’re doing here… and they can remove people who the people have elected.”

Instead of automatic expulsion, Senator Rogers suggested exploring voter recall legislation. This would allow constituents, rather than party machinery, to determine if a representative who has changed affiliations should remain in office. He argued that the current proposal ignores the “confluence of factors” that lead a person to vote for a candidate, which often has nothing to do with party loyalty.

“A representative should have the right to be cantankerous,” Senator Rogers concluded. “Let us not try to quell a non‐existent rebellion. Our greatest strength can prove to be our greatest weakness if people perceive that there’s an elite political class of people who look after themselves.”

(RR)