The elected Senate
Posted: 28/12/2007 - 11:06 AM
Author: Ideas and Opinions By: Janus
Last week I had promised in my column that I would write about the THIRD FORCE this week but, I have decided that the subject of this article is more urgent.
The question of whether or not we should have an elected Senate is political but, it should not be partisan. The major political parties choose what issues they will make partisan, and the citizens of Belize have no control over this. Still, I contend that the question itself is not partisan and, so, I feel free to discuss it, hopefully not offending either the Red or the Blue.
At the outset, when advocates of an elected Senate were voicing their views in the newspapers and over the airwaves, I was against it. It seemed to me that they wanted to give the Senate powers which I thought would paralyse and frustrate government, making it unduly difficult for government to fulfill its promises to the people. If we want to keep a tight rein on the use of public funds, there are other ways to do it. If corruption is the problem, amend the Corruption in Public Life Act and give the Integrity Commission more power.
My other objection to the elected Senate is that if the people preferred a Red House of Representatives, they would vote for a Red Senate and, if they preferred the Blue, the House and the Senate would have a majority of the same persuasion.
Then, one of the more perceptive advocates of election instead of appointment of senators, pointed out what he considered to be a decided advantage of election. What if the election of senators were done mid-term of the House, then, if the government were performing to the people’s satisfaction, they might select a Senate of similar persuasion and, if not, they would elect a Senate of another colour. I have to agree with him.
However, under our present constitution, all the difference it would make is that if the House and Senate were of the same colour, it would be smooth sailing for government bills and resolutions, and, the waters might be turbulent if the House and Senate were of different parties.
The ideal would be if elections were this wise. In a four-year term let’s say. Elections for the House of Representatives would be in Year One, and for the Senate in Year Three. Thus, elections for the Senate would always be mid-term of the House. The position would remain the same, if the term of office for both Houses would be the same.
I noticed that the Opposition at the last House meeting were not in favor of an elected Senate but, were prepared to support the government resolution for the matter to be put to the electorate in a referendum, provided the wording of the resolution was changed to reflect a decision of a united House.
I am, therefore, surprised to hear eminent persons on the airways expressing strong disapproval of the referendum. They argue that there are several Senate models, and the people won’t know what they are voting for or against. I was also amazed to find that younger members of my own family, whose judgement I have some regard for, were expressing similar views. They say it is not a straightforward question like, “Are you for or against capital punishment?” I agree, it is not as straightforward.
I think that those citizens who are in favor of an elected Senate may very well find that the model that is finally agreed upon in the House, bearing in mind that they are all politicians and, will decide on what is good for politicians in general, will not be to their liking. It cannot be otherwise, because the resolution needs a ¾ majority to be passed into law.
Please allow me to offer some information about the Senate that you may find useful.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. “A senate is a deliberative body, often the upper house or chamber of a legislature. There have been many such bodies in history, the first of which was the Roman Senate. The word ‘senatorial’ is derived from the Latin word ‘senatus,’ which comes from ‘senex’ - old man. The Latin word ‘senator’ was adopted into English with no change in spelling. Its meaning comes from a very ancient form of simple social organization in which decision making powers are reserved for the eldest men. For the same reason, the word ‘senate’ is correctly used when referring to any powerful authority characteristically composed of the eldest members of a community, as a deliberative body of a faculty in an institution of higher learning is often called a Senate.”
As a matter of interest, the Roman Senate was composed of the most learned and influential of the wealthy landowners, retired generals of the army and other prominent members of the society. In effect, they were members of the ruling class or oligarchy.
As a general rule, age and experience are supposed to make men of good intellect wiser. I think that wisdom is to be valued in a public man and, therefore, I would suggest that there should be a minimum age for senators. A man’s health and strength deteriorate with the passage of time, but not his mind. I think the minimum age should be sixty-five years.
I am not fully convinced that an elected Senate is to be preferred to an appointed one, because, I am very impressed with the performance of the Senate we have. It has persons of high integrity, appointed by a wide cross section of the most prominent organizations in civil society, secular and clerical, along with appointees by the government and the Opposition in proportion to their numbers in the House of Representatives.
No offence is intended but, at the risk of offending some of the advocates of an elected Senate who wish it to have extraordinary powers over the government, I must say bluntly that this is a dream never to be realized because, no government will have it.
What I am fully convinced about is that it is right and proper that the people should decide whether or not there should be an elected Senate. And, it is fortuitous that we have a Referendum Act to provide the means by which our electorate may be directly engaged in decision making. That there will be such a referendum is, without doubt, the greatest step forward in the advancement of the ideals of democracy.
To those who say the people don’t have enough knowledge about Senates to make a judgement of he pros and cons, I will say this. The reason why it is better for a jury of his peers to judge the guilt or innocence of a man on trial and, the reason why adult suffrage to determine who should be given the power to govern is better than letting an electoral college decide, is the same. This is that the COLLECTIVE WISDOM of the people is superior to all others.
|