It is said that sometimes “out of evil cometh good;” or, “it is an ill wind that blows no good”; or in our Kriol vernacular, “evri disappointment da fi di betta.” And, while even our current PUP government leaders publicly lament the plight of “the King’s loyal Opposition,” which seems to be in complete disarray and disunity; and our lauded democracy seems to be in a vulnerable state, perhaps there is an opportunity here for activists and freedom fighters like “Vision Inspired by the People” (VIP) to hearken our leaders back to one of their most egregious failings in our quest for good governance. The Opposition may be demonstrably weak and in shambles, but even when they have been at their strongest, our democracy was still seriously flawed by what has become an almost accepted undermining impediment that has plagued our honourable House for so long that we have all come to take it for granted. But if we were to fix what has become in actual practice a Cabinet dictatorship, perhaps our democracy could still flourish even with the Opposition party in shambles. For that matter, did our Constitution’s architects foresee the necessity of ensuring a healthy democracy even when one party totally controls the House?

Long before the announcement of the date for the last general election in 2020, the Belize Peace Movement (BPM) had called for (and even took their case to court) the government to amend the electoral divisions, according to our Constitution, to reflect a more equal number of voters per constituency. However, both major political parties complained that the time was too short for a “redistricting” exercise; and the PUP even pledged in their PlanBelize manifesto to tackle the redistricting issue promptly if elected. Well, they were elected; and now it is nearing the end of their 5-year term, and the time is running out, even as some pundits are suggesting that, with the Opposition not in a “battle-ready” state, the time is ripe for the government to spring an early general election and receive an almost guaranteed next 5-year term in office. No one would fault them. Such is the nature of party politics.

But, already the general population can see the signs of what could become a problem down the road, if this government is left to continue on their merry way, with the confidence that their power will not be effectively checked by any organized opposition. The hospital land controversy may seem to have prompted very good explanations from GoB, and real justification for their actions in changing the location for the facility, and paying the going commercial rate to secure the land at the desired location for the hospital; but as the saying goes, “it’s not what you do, but how you do it.” It is a concern among a number of voters that changes could be so suddenly made, big changes in plans, without their being consulted and having a chance to ventilate their feelings and ideas, before a final decision is made, even if the final decision is different from what they had desired. But to be told that, as the P.M. offered, “it is a done deal”, or words to that effect, leaves some members of the electorate feeling powerless.

There can be no arguing the fact that since taking office in November 2020, the current PUP government under Prime Minister John Briceño has accomplished a whole lot. This is still a very popular government; not perfect, of course, but their record speaks for itself, in education, in housing, in roads and infrastructure, in lands, in tourism and diaspora relations, in the arts and culture, in health (NHI) despite some individual hiccups, the environment, etc.; even law and order has seen much improvement, despite a continuing crime problem. That all this could have been accomplished even in the absence of a unified and strong Opposition, suggests that the Belizean people are to be praised for making some good choices in 2020 for individuals of competence and character and good leadership to take charge of the business of government.

But it is also said that “power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We would not like for this inspired band of statesmen to begin to lose their way with a growing feeling of unbridled power and arrogance. Being human, that slippery slope could become a problem, as campaign finance donors begin to put more and more pressure on GoB to satisfy their particular commercial objectives, which might not all be in the public’s best interest.

Perhaps it is time to seriously revisit and reflect on the merits and purpose of the stipulation by the architects of our Independence Constitution that “the Cabinet shall be comprised of (a) not more than two-thirds of the elected Members of the party that obtains the majority seats in the House of Representatives… “ The Constitution further provides “that a Minister of State appointed under section 45 shall not be a member of Cabinet but may attend Cabinet meetings upon the invitation of the Prime Minister.” That “Minister of State” provision was a later amendment to the Constitution, and it has been suggested by some observers that it may have effectively resulted in “dictatorship by Cabinet”, which, with the previous “not more than two-thirds” stipulation in the original, may have been something considered worth avoiding. “Who pays the piper calls the tune,” and with the substantial salary adjustment that comes along with an appointment to Minister of State, it would appear that in practice such persons have become a permanent part of Cabinet, which is NOT what our Constitution apparently intended. After all, being invited to attend a Cabinet meeting is one thing; but it seems that this Minister of State thing has become so entrenched, that it has effectively undermined the “not more than two-thirds” stipulation.

Consider the very real possibility that, as once happened in the 1960s, there could be a clean PUP sweep in the next general election. It would be a House with no dissenting voice if the P.M. is allowed, as has become the practice, to appoint as Ministers of State all other members of government not already appointed as Ministers. Would that be best for our government, where all are sworn to Cabinet secrecy and unanimity, and with no dissenting or querying voice speaking out on any matter in our House of Representatives?

This is a matter for our Constitutional Commission to seriously look at, because our precious democracy could easily slip into a form of functional dictatorship. And consider the concern raised by C.B. Hyde on page 17 of his book, Janus. He observed that, because of our current “first past the post” electoral system, it is possible for one party to receive only 52% of the votes cast, and yet end up with more than 3/4 of the seats in the House, “which gives them the power to suspend the Constitution and to change it unilaterally.” It has happened before, and he suggested that “the Constitution should be changed to prevent this happening again.” In this time of Opposition break-down, it is probably a good opportunity to focus on changes to our Constitution, which, ironically, will require the approval of the very politicians whose power the proposed changes would be intended to curtail.