I called this one, ?Who is against peace?? It was started, and the bulk of it was written on Wednesday, 29thJanuary, 1992; the emboldened section I think was added later that same year.

?There are people on the streets, vehicles moving on the avenues and the highways. Business activity goes on in the offices and warehouses, stores and shops, private and public places in the city, towns and villages. Life goes on in Belize. And the Maritime Areas Act (MAA) scenario is but a thing of the past. Or is it?

?Actually, the debate continues, which shows that as a people we?re still not sure if we did ?the right thing?. In fact, we, the people of Belize, did not do anything. Our leaders did. And we the people can only pray for the future.

?In a matter of this magnitude, historical significance and so vital to the well-being of a nation of people, it still baffles me how it could happen in one of the most lauded democracies in this part of the world. It is not so much a question of whether the Bill is in intent or design good for Belize. Notwithstanding the merits or demerits of the Bill, the mind boggling reality of 1992 is that, our leaders decided that the Bill was good and therefore it had to be passed, even though it appeared clear that the vast majority of Belizeans who cared enough to express their opinions, thought otherwise.

?To my mind this is the crux of the matter. The merits or demerits of the Bill can best be measured on a scale of the people?s judgement, because they will be affected in every facet of their daily lives. If the people are scared of the Bill, forcing it upon them, as was done, introduces a new measure of stress in our daily living. And this stress comes now from two other sources, not from one (the Guatemala problem) as before. Now we are worrying more about the effects of this Bill on the future relationship of our country with Guatemala; but just as importantly, we are worrying about the condition of our democracy. Has our democracy gone the way of our literacy rate? In their haste to show ?good faith? to Guatemala, have our leaders begun the process of making Belize over?

?It appears that, if it is any comfort, our leaders were also concerned about our democracy. They were concerned enough to try and keep its appearance intact. But my concern is that in their zeal to pass what they considered a good Bill, our leaders got carried away by their own party political agendas and personal ambitions, to the point where they were prepared to enlist their whole brain thrust into a superb strategy to ensure the Bill?s passage, while tactfully remaining inside the legal borders of our constitutional democracy. In other words, democracy must appear to exist, even if in this instance it had to be gagged, bound and mummified.

?Why do our leaders insist on maintaining an appearance of democracy in this matter? Because the power and authority we the people give them is done through this system we call our constitutional democracy. Democracy means we the people have the power. And our constitution is the vehicle we use to appoint various individuals to exercise this power and authority in order to administrate the business of government. So if our leaders outrightly break up the democracy, they would be breaking up their own powerful positions. If they did that, then they may continue to rule only by force or the threat of force; until another group of would-be leaders overthrew them by force. Such has been the case in a number of ?republics? in our region. Today, in the nineties, many of these countries are trying to move toward constitutional democracy, like we have enjoyed in Belize. But have we taken a step backwards?

?It has to be assumed, regardless of their I.Q., that our leaders knew that the vast majority of Belizeans were, if not outrightly opposed to it, at least skeptical enough about the MAA to be against its passage at this time. Over seventy-five per cent of the people who spoke on the various call-in radio talk-shows and the numerous indoor ?consultations? with the Bi-Partisan Commission, were against the passage of the Bill, despite the fact that leaders from both political parties were trying to convince them otherwise. In other words, the people spoke for themselves directly to our political leaders and to the nation as a whole.

?Did our political leaders listen? Of course they did. But they did not hear what they wanted to hear. This Bill, they were going to pass, come hell, high water or you know what. (Look how deeply the Guatemalan threat is etched into the Belizean psyche.) For democracy?s sake, they needed voices of approval, and fast, before the mounting swell of opposition, following the formation of the ?Patriotic Alliance, became a tidal wave of national resistance, as in 1981. Enter the political genius of the People?s United Party.

?Politics, it is said, is sometimes a very dirty game; but ?it?s the only game in town?. So our political leaders turned to some social, religious and business leaders in Belize and asked them: ?Are you in favor of peace? Do you want peace with your neighbors?? And the answer came back, ?Yes?. They could have asked anybody on the streets of Belize. After all, who is against peace? But that does not mean that we all believe the best way to maintain the peace we now enjoy is to embark upon the slippery road of the MAA as presented.

?So the government staged a ?Peace Rally? at taxpayers? expense, and these leaders cried out for peace, while some party people cheered, and the political leaders said ?Que viva!?. ?Now the Bill can be passed, and democracy will survive.?

?We expect some social and business leaders to have their own convictions and some to be even gambling their political fortunes, but it is very painful to see our religious leaders caught in a political trap. Would that they could have hearkened to the words of our Saviour when interrogated by the Pharisees about His allegiance to Caesar viv a vis His allegiance to God. It needed to be said very clearly by our religious leaders, but it wasn?t, that being in favor of peace does not necessarily mean being in favor of the Maritime Areas Act as presented.

?And it was not long after the arrogant display of power in passing the MAA, that government took another bold and daring step in the face of mounting opposition from the people, and sold off its BTL shares, so that a majority of shares are now controlled by one large concern. This again is an abuse of our democracy. Government is entrusted with the people?s power of ownership and to be good stewards of the people?s business. In so doing it would appear within rightful bounds to negotiate with the people?s property, be it land or whatever, as long as ownership, meaning control, remains in the hands of the people. But to sell off completely what you have been entrusted with is way out of line. If it be within the letter of our laws, then it certainly is not in the spirit of our laws.

?The people of Belize own certain things, and permission must be explicitly granted before they can relinquish that ownership. If the sale of government?s majority shares in BTL was not a breach of our constitution, then it certainly was a breach of the people?s faith. The elected government doesn?t own these things; the people of Belize own them as well as they own this country. The government are the caretakers, not owners. They can?t be selling what they don?t own. But this new ?privatization? philosophy has apparently given political license to a massive selling spree which is promised to cure all ills in our country, but which could backfire on us one day soon, and the words ?lock, stock and barrel? could begin to have new meaning to the young generation.

?Nevertheless, life goes on in Belize. There are other major problems to be dealt with soon. Social, ethnic, economic, etc. Hopefully, if ever again the overwhelming national consensus is visibly pointing in one direction on a matter of national importance, our political leaders will not once more fall to temptation and blasphemously attempt to sacrifice our democracy on the altar of ?peace? or some such virtue.?

Sincerely,

Charles X