Two leading political scientists have cautioned that the government’s proposed constitutional amendment to prevent MPs from defecting to the opposition could erode democratic accountability by concentrating excessive power in party leaders and weakening the independence of elected representatives.
Dr Kristina Hinds and Devaron Bruce suggested that the bill appears designed to suppress internal party dissent and undermine the constituency-based focus of the Constitution.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Mia Mottley introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill in a bid to end parliamentary “floor-crossing”.
The amendment mandates that any Member of Parliament (MP) who formally changes their political allegiance—whether by resigning from their party, being expelled, or joining another faction—must automatically vacate their seat. This would trigger an immediate by-election, forcing the representative to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate under their new or independent status.
The amendment would effectively result in the Constitution of Barbados recognising political parties for the first time.
She described this development as a “constitutional mismatch”, if the constitutional amendment elevates the political party to a level of legal authority that currently does not exist in the Constitution, which historically focuses on the election of individuals.
“Double-edged sword”
While Mottley argued that the bill would prevent MPs from abandoning the platforms on which they were elected, Dr Hinds, a former independent senator, warned that this logic was deeply flawed.
Describing the bill as a “double-edged sword”, she acknowledged the rationale for preventing opportunistic party-switching but warned the clause would allow party leadership to trigger a by-election through expulsion, granting parties excessive power.
She said: “It opens the door to persons being arbitrarily treated within a political party and then placed in a vulnerable position by having to face the electorate once again.”
This would create a framework for party leadership to use the threat of expulsion to suppress internal dissent or force compliance, effectively silencing the individual MPs conscience.
“Noose” of collective responsibility
Echoing these concerns, Bruce issued a stinging critique, suggesting the reform could “undermine the constituency” entirely. While parliamentarians run on party tickets, their primary duty is to represent all 12 000-plus voters in their district, not just the party apparatus, he said.
He described the threat of expulsion as a “noose” over the heads of legislators, particularly backbenchers, warning that the legislation would stifle the essential role of the backbench parliamentary critic.
“The question I have to ask: do you think a backbencher is more or less willing to critique a cabinet with this legislation?” Bruce asked. “The answer is no, because the threat of expulsion is there.”
By effectively removing the ability for a member to sit as an independent, the government is closing a vital safety valve, Bruce said. He referred to historical instances in which independent members raised critical national issues that the major parties ignored.
In crossing the floor in 2014, former prime minister Owen Arthur left the opposition, the first independent MP in the House since Frank Walcott broke with Premier Grantley Adams and the Barbados Labour Party to sit as an independent in the House of Assembly in 1954. Bishop Joseph Atherley became an independent MP after leaving the Barbados Labour Party less than a week after the May 2018 general election.
Reactive lawmaking vs holistic reform
A major point of contention is the reactive nature of the bill, according to Bruce. He noted that the administration appears to be altering the nation’s supreme law in response to only two recent defections — those of Bishop Atherley and Ralph Thorne.
“You do not change a constitution for the realities of two instances,” Bruce cautioned, suggesting the remedy goes far beyond the perceived problem.
He admitted he could “meet the legislation halfway” on the issue of voluntary floor-crossing but argued that the current amendment is not a holistic reform of the Westminster system. Instead, he claims it “doubles down” on the concentration of power within the executive.
ricardoroberts@barbadostoday.bb
The post Pundits warn of democratic risks in anti-defection bill appeared first on Barbados Today.
