“In life, the greater the principle, the less people there are who will follow it. The higher the calling, the fewer the followers.” ¯ Craig D. Lounsbrough

I have been observing more than I have been participating in the discussions, debates, fights, attacks, monologues, discourses, media rantings and outright profanities regarding the ICJ referendum vote.  I have been reluctant at times to even participate, and instead I just read or listen, but now and then I have been so taken aback by the lack of “principles” by some I thought of as principled that I chip in my two cents and when I do I come hard.  Of course a lot has been said, on social media especially, and there are those who have created fake accounts just to launch an attack on others in the most cowardly manner. And of course there are the media houses, morning shows that not only mislead, but worse yet, get very personal in attacking persons and perceived opponents and of course some only invite guests who have their views … they are just not balanced! I know that when the message can’t be attacked, the messenger will be attacked, which is an indication that the attacker is unprincipled.

I have seen once educated people, of all walks of life and professions, lower themselves into posting attacks at others, calling them out by name for simply expressing a view. Notably Mose Hyde from the WUB morning show and Wil Maheia, both have their own views and own spin on the issue, but because they do not align their views with those on the Yes-rostrum, they have been called all sorts of names. It’s uncanny to see how men and especially women have been carrying themselves like trolls, hooligans, political whores and worst yet, unprincipled persons.

I can respect anyone’s decision to vote yes or no, because I want my decision to vote no to be likewise respected, but what I cannot respect is the lack of principle(s) with which too many are acting; especially those people such as lawyers, senators, media personnel, media-houses, senior political leaders, senior public officers and even professionals holding some key offices. Now I want readers to appreciate the distinction on their right to either vote yes or no, from their social and moral obligation to at all times act based on principles in all they do. And the principles I most expect them to abide by are: 1. The rule of law, 2. The truth; 3. Respect for self and others (stop the bullying); 4. Transparency& accountability and 5. Integrity.

I know that often people become so embroiled in an issue, but these great principles should never stop being the compass by which those in position and power and influence, operate. Apart from the disappointments in behaviour, if there is one good that has come out it is by me now being afforded an opportunity to see the hearts and souls of men and women, who are in leadership in this country. Their most vile and unprincipled nature is on full display!

“You can’t do wrong right, but you can do right wrong.”

¯ Bohdi Sanders, Modern Bushido: Living a Life of Excellence

Now, from my perch, I believe the right thing that needed to be done is for the Belizean people to ultimately have a say on what the settlement with Guatemala should be. I take this view because our Constitution already defines our borders and because since our independence our Referendum Act, CAP 10 provides as follows:

Sec. 2. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a referendum shall be held in any of these circumstances, (d) on any proposed settlement with the Republic of Guatemala for resolving the Belize/Guatemala border dispute…

So the right thing to do is to ask the people if they agree or disagree with a proposed settlement.  However, the problem is that there is not a proposed settlement brought to us, rather there is a mode of trying to reach a settlement, in which a court of fifteen judges are being asked to determine the dispute and rule who is right or wrong on what the border between Belize and Guatemala is and in so doing what is the territory of Belize.

So in my view the government is doing the right thing wrong, because this referendum is not to have the people say if they agree to a proposed settlement, because there is not yet a proposed settlement. What they are being asked to vote on is a method of settlement! Those who can be honest please be honest about what this is and what the Act says! Furthermore, it is so wrong how in trying to reach their end and objective they have opted to lose all principles and instead of allowing people to freely choose, they have said that since they want a yes vote to go to the ICJ, they have launched a Yes-campaign. As a matter of fact I don’t think any government or political party should have taken a side! That only made matters worse! But what is interesting is that the same failed diplomats, negotiators, foreign ministers and prime ministers have closed ranks in demanding the same yes-vote, compounding their failure and hoping the ICJ could remedy their failings! To me, it is as if, wanting to hide their failure, they want to impose this next step.

In all earnestness, it might be the right step, but it is being done the wrong way.  It’s the wrong way because of so many reasons. To name a few: it is wrong because a matter of re-registration should not have been held so close to referendum date with the state of unpreparedness of the Elections and Boundaries Unit and the corrupt decisions to allow some political favourites to be placed on the voting list despite registering after the deadline is absolutely wrong! Then it is wrong because some voters are now disenfranchised, including those in the diaspora, like students and professionals who are only away for a specific reason but have every right to vote on this issue, but were not able to come home to register, and there is no allowance for a vote outside of a jurisdiction. My son is now one of them!

It is also wrong because the Special Agreement should have been brought to the people first and discussed before having one man commit us to a referendum that goes against the intent of our referendum law. So from the start this was already on the wrong foot, but the average person cannot yet understand that, and worse now that votes are being lobbied for along political lines.

“Principles don’t change, people do.” ¯ Carlos Wallace

Sadly, those pushing the yes, DO NOT want to see the wrong and the error in the process and are so pig-headed, thus what should have been and could have been a process receiving more acceptance is getting more push-back. However, from a sociology point of view, I find it fascinating to see collectively as a nation where we stand on principle, and darn it’s sad to report we are rogue … our political leaders are all rogue. Imagine an entire party, cabinet, House  of Representatives majority and Senate majority abandoned principles, if some of them ever had any! Yet they cannot see that the problem is not if they want to go to the ICJ or not, the problem is how they are doing it and all the corruption and improprieties within the process.  However their collective mindset seems to be “the end justifies the means”! Sad but true!

I will provide just one simple example of the wrong in the process. The recent case for an interim injunction heard before Chief Justice Benjamin, is solid proof of how unprincipled our leaders are. For sure the Chief Justice is not a nitwit and knows he is swimming against the current to do the right thing. He made a ruling and sought to expedite the hearing. The challenge to the legality of the writ is a serious issue to be tried, and an indication of an error in the process. The CJ even offered an olive branch when he told the government legal team that they could apply to amend the interim injunction terms, which he would hear. However that team, not too astute, decided to appeal that decision at the Court of Appeal, although it is trite law that an appeal cannot be heard until after 21 days, this deadline is for both parties. Even the guys in prison know this 21-day rule! However, GOB lost! But they no longer turned to the courts, and opted to act above the law, and as I expected, Prime Minister Barrow took the law into his own hands and changed the law to circumvent the court’s ruling and hearing!

“Compromising your principles, even one time, can be a terrible mistake.”

¯ Frank Sonnenberg, Soul Food: Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life

Now past and present advocates have condemned this abuse of the legislature, yet senators like from the Church and NGOs, who should be more principled, voted for it! And lawyers who in a past life condemned this abuse supported it. See, the principle of right and wrong does not change … but the people change!

Tragically, instead of letting the legal process operate, they are all guilty of being unprincipled when they all supported the very arrogant and high-handed PM Barrow who unprofessionally and like a true dictator went to the National Assembly and passed the Belize Territorial Dispute Referendum Bill 2019 to make legal and “right” that which was already wrong (will write more on this another time).  Kudos to the Senators for the Unions and the business community for not supporting that Bill; for once employees and employers are on the same page. Their principle was not that we should not have a referendum, but their principled stance was simply, we got to do things the right way; be accountable, be transparent and be honest! Senator Valerie Woods had come out saying she personally will vote a yes, but she missed the opportunity to denounce the abuse of the legislature to defy a court ruling, yet this is the very act she had condemned when PM Barrow did the same thing with the Audit and Finance Act. After he broke that law and took over $10M from the PetroCaribe loan, he went and passed the PetroCaribe Loan Act and made it retroactive to legalize the very illegal act he had done! But at least she abstained and did not go against the view the party which appointed her has taken!

See, only once you need to sacrifice your principles! Well, when it comes to Senator Rocke, I have long believed he does not have principles and as a “man of God” he is a sure disappointment, because his very elevation to that office was manipulated to exclude the evangelical Christians. As the usual political divide on the votes was expected, I looked for those in the Civil Society to do better. As to Sen. Osmany Salas, he had already said he personally would vote yes-ICJ, very much his right, yet he represents a community of NGO’s which to my experience would have always looked at the principled approach of challenging any process that is not right and any abuse of the legislature. That is what they used to represent historically, but it seems the level of transparency and accountability they used to exercise too has diminished. He is their voice and I have heard it clearly!

So in concluding I am asking readers to please understand that the “ends CANNOT justify the means” as the process being used to get to a vote, must be beyond reproach. Therefore don’t confuse your desire for a say or a vote in referendum, with your right to likewise request that the process not be tainted! Do things right man, do it with integrity!

“A noble soul predicates its living charter upon leading a principled existence. Without personal integrity, a person leads a feckless and meaningless life.”

¯ Kilroy J. Oldster, Dead Toad Scrolls