The Belize Constitution, as of 1990, did not stop parliamentarians from crossing the floor. Up to that time it was considered a necessary tool that intelligent men and women elected to office be allowed to follow their consciences and the directives of their constituency in promoting/protecting our fledgling democracy.
Sometime during the 1998-2003 government, the elected representatives of the nation went to the House and passed a law, presumably without dissent, that any representative who contemplated crossing the floor would have to resign and submit to a bye-election. As we understand it, the law is not unique to Belize.
The last laws to float down from heaven were found beside a burning bush (I think), and written down in stone, lest any mere mortal got upstart or forgetful. Man’s laws do not come down from heaven, at least, not often. Man’s laws are the product of thought, hopefully with benign purpose. They are properly (should be) discussed, debated until men and women near the point of exhaustion. When all parties are properly satisfied, at least a majority of the party, thought becomes law.
Now, what kinds of minds could devise a law to hamstring intelligent men and women so they cannot act on conscience? What could have happened in so few years to make us strike in a law to curtail such action?
The People’s United Party government of 1989-93 had been daubed as one lacking in transparency and accountability. For the 1998 general elections it brought in a new guard, fresh blood, and proposed a new path for a new and better Belize. On page 3 of its Proposals for Political Reform, presented by Hon. Said Musa on November 25, 1997, appears the proposal: That Crossing the floor by members of the Assembly be made unconstitutional. Members wishing to change parties should be made to resign and face a bye-election.
Wait a cotton pickin’ minute there, Braa. The PUP? Hey, the only party in modern political history to take advantage of this rule, proposing a law to ban crossing the floor? I was a boy when they seduced Honorable Vicente Choco (1975?) to cross the floor. Some years later, Honorable Stanley Usher (1989) also yielded to whatever form of temptation. No, there were no momentous issues that we know of, that spurred these men to such dramatic activity. Well, there was the talk of being better able to help out the poor people in their constituencies, if you want an honorable solution to the puzzle.
Aha, in 1993, when the Blues lost to the Reds, there were vile rumors that the Blues had sunk to a horrible low, that they had attempted to seduce two parliamentarians from the opposite side. The effect of this would have been to derail the will of the people…the toppling of a duly elected government…a government that hadn’t yet sat one day on the Hill. True or false, the wrong would plague the Reds for five years and more, until the people wrenched the steering wheel, gave the pink slips to that dismal runaway government seeking revenge for that (perceived) injustice, and laid it to rest.
Was the Blue feeling guilty for the dread intention of 1993, in 1997? Did they hope to pass a law knowing that they had kleptomaniac tendencies to grab from the other side of the House, and this was the only way…cold turkey? Were they completely sincere? Or were they just playing politics with a serious matter?
The Final Report of the Political Reform Commission, dated January 2000, also includes a recommendation to put an end to the crossover. Recommendation 46: Anti-Defection in the House, states: The Commission recommends that the Government of Belize, after public consultation, develops and enacts anti-defection legislation for members of the House of Representatives. So, the good PUP was not alone on this initiative.
I have heard Senator Godwin Hulse, a prominent member of the Reform Commission, condemn the no cross-over law on two visits to the KREM Women at Work show with Miss Virginia Echols and Miss Yaya Marin Coleman. Irregardless of his position back then, whether he supported that recommendation or not (we presume the Commission was a democracy), the point is that he now thinks it is a bad law. There are many, many Belizeans who share his point of view.
But really, is this law bad? The no law back then almost led to the toppling of a government when there was NO issue, NO urgent matter that we know of within the party that had won the elections fair and square, that should have led to their dissolution. Can you imagine the chaos in this nation if that dastardly conception (crossover) had been birthed? It is not a trivial matter. And prior to 1993 the crossover had been done in less than proud fashion on two occasions.
I share the opinion with many in Belize that our system does not produce the kinds of candidates with the caliber to deliver government for the people. What we end up with is a head or two or three, and a whole lot of yes Sa man.
I have asked a few people near to the Commission, and a few other leaders, their opinions on the conception and execution of the law stopping the crossover. It is from a bygone day, and they say they need time to recall, or to revisit old notes. Hopefully this piece joggles a response.
P.S. Thanks to former government minister, Mr. Jorge Espat, for contributing to this piece by loaning us his personal copies, the Proposals for Political Reform (PUP 1997), and the Final Report of the Political Reform Commission (Jan. 2000).