In democracies, people elect representatives to form governments which exercise authority in their name. Governments rule with the permission of the people and are supposed to do so in their best interests.
However, once a government is established, it becomes all powerful and can do as it chooses. Parliament is supreme, except that it cannot contravene the Constitution of Belize. That is why the purists say that the Constitution is supreme but, the constitution is a document and documents are subject to interpretation by lawyers.
If Parliament passes a law which appears to be out of line with the constitution, it could be challenged, then the judiciary takes over and the attorneys, who are experts in constitutional law, argue before a Supreme Court Justice who will rule on the law’s validity.
Government makes decisions in accord with existing laws on all manner of things, which are acted upon by its servants called public officers. The laws are of its own making or were in existence before it came into office.
As a general rule, Government makes laws and takes decisions in carrying out its manifesto promises, which, presumably, were responsible for its success at the polls. Other laws and decisions are made as the need arises in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities to the nation.
In extraordinary circumstances and on rare occasions, Government responds to the expressed wish of the majority of citizens by enacting a law which enhances and deepens our democracy. Such a law was the Referendum Act, passed without dissent by the National Assembly.
The Referendum Act came into effect on the assent of the Governor General on March 6, 1999. This is one of the most significance events in the political history of Belize. It should be indelibly imprinted on the minds of all Belizeans, especially our school children.
We can be proud of the face that Belize is one of a handful of countries in the world which has this avant garde legislation. Amongst Caricom countries, only Antigua and Barbuda and Trinidad and Tobago have this distinction.
It is provided in the Act that the National Assembly may pass a resolution declaring that “a certain issue may be of sufficient national importance that it should be submitted to the electors for their approval through a referendum.”
If this Act was made before the government ten years before decided to embark on an Economic Citizenship programme, which virtually changed the demographic history of Belize, it would have had to be submitted to the electorate for approval. Judging by public reaction to the programme, it is reasonable to conclude that it would not have been approved.
Belizeans have a saying, “Two heads better than one”. It is presumed that the heads are of similar quality because, the judgement of one intelligent man might be superior to that coming out of a conference of ignoramuses. So. The proper interpretation of this saying would be that if two persons of equal knowledge conferred on a matter, their joint decision is more to be relied upon than that of one individual of like knowledge and intelligence.
This principle is confirmed by the general belief that in a court trial, the collective wisdom of a jury of twelve ordinary people is more to be relied upon than that of a judge of the Supreme Court.
Taking the next step. The selection of representatives to govern a country by an electorate is preferable to that of an electoral college. It comes out of a belief that the collective wisdom of people of all walks of life and all degrees of intelligence, knowledge and experience, is superior to that of any group of men and women, however well qualified. Hence the axiom! Vox Populi, Vox Dei.”
The people are always right. Governments are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. If they make too many mistakes, or their mistakes are too grievous, they can expect to be replaced. But, a wise government will trust the people to make the correct choice in a matter of sufficient national importance. What matters to be put to the people in a referendum is, of course, the prerogative of government.
In the life of a nation, matters which are of sufficient national importance to be put to the people in a referendum, will arise, rarely, but there are three such matters that would seem to qualify:
(i) The Elected Senate
There is a significant and growing body of opinion which believes that an elected Senate would improve our system of government but, many of us prefer the status quo. Those in favour of the proposal are articulate and aggressive, but there is no assurance that they are in the majority. Certainly, the matter is of sufficient national importance to be put to the people, and not for government to endorse and take to the National Assembly, where it may be defeated by the numbers. However, if it were approved in a referendum, it would be binding on both sides of the House to pass it into law.
(ii) The four-year term
There is a significant body of opinion, not as articulate and aggressive, which believes that government would exercise more restraint in the use of power, and, in general, act more wisely and judiciously, if they had to face the electorate in four years instead of five. Also, the Opposition would be more patient and less hostile if they didn’t have to wait so long to challenge. Also, a fixed date for general elections would be an improvement over the status quo.
(iii) The death penalty
There is supposed to be a death penalty for murder, which apparently, the majority of citizens support but, government actions during the past three decades indicate that it is considering the abolition of this form of punishment. Unquestionably, this is a matter of sufficient national importance for the people to decide.
Regarding the death penalty, government can abolish or retain it without consulting the people. All that is required is an amendment to the law, if the decision is to abolish. That may be injudicious.
Democracy is at its best when the majority of the people can have their way and, in the case of the three matters proposed, it would be in the national interest for the electorate to say aye or nay.
W are assured that if and when we come to terms with Guatemala in the form of a treaty, the question will be put to the nation in a referendum. The Act is explicit where that specific issue is concerned. The terms of the treaty would be embodied in such a referendum and no other matter would be included.
However, in dealing with these three matters raised in this essay, all that is needed are simple questions on our general election ballot papers for the elector to answer in the affirmative or negative. The will of the people thus expressed would be a mandate to the National Assembly to enact the appropriate legislation.
Below is an example of the questions to be put:
(i) Are you in favor of an elected Senate? Aye [] no []
(ii) Are you in favour of a four year term? Aye [] no []
(iii) Should the Death Penalty be abolished? Aye [] no []
It is suggested that the Act be amended to allow for this procedure along the lines of state legislatures in America.