Rosalea Hamilton | The (W)right time to rethink representation

THE PEOPLE’S voice has been expressed on the infamous brutal beating captured on video and allegation of Member of Parliament (MP) George Wright’s involvement. His silence on the matter and circumstantial evidence in the public domain are troubling. Constituents of Westmoreland Central bearing placards staged protests in the constituency demanding the resignation of MP Wright while others have protested near Parliament.

Using press releases and social media commentary, a wide cross section of civil society (including the Church, private sector, women, governance advocates, the diaspora) have joined a loud chorus of people insisting on the resignation of MP Wright. Importantly, his constituents have questioned the effectiveness of his representation during leave of absence, noting his independent status in Parliament as “neither fish nor fowl”. After all, he’s accountable to his constituents … right?

This incident highlights, inter alia, the flaws in our representative democracy and the weak arrangements in place for the voice of the people to be heard and acted upon. It raises fundamental governance questions: Are MPs agents of political parties or representatives of the people? What terms of engagement between constituents and their representatives are required to increase the chance that parliamentary decisions reflect the will of the people? How should the people’s representative determine the “will of the people” during a term of office after an election? Are parliamentary arrangements adequate to hear the voice of the people in such matters of importance to the people of Jamaica?

RETHINKING REPRESENTATION

I am of the view that our inherited governance arrangements are ill-suited for the current development challenges (now worsened by the COVID pandemic) that requires innovative responses from the Jamaican people. Now is the time for our voices to be heard! We must, therefore, rethink the concept and practice of how our voices are heard through representative democracy.

1.Terms of Engagement: With no formally accepted job description/terms of reference for the work of a member of parliament anything goes! To give real meaning to MPs as representatives of the people, there is need to clarify (preferably in writing) the terms of active engagement between MPs and constituents and to create a meaningful partnership to achieve specific agreed objectives. At least two objectives should be clarified: (1) responsibilities of the MP as legislator; and (2) responsibilities of MP as representative. In so doing, MPs ought to lead discussions about how the voices of their constituents will be represented in decision-making as a central part of the discussions about the Constituency Development plans. Significantly, MPs ought to clarify whether the voice of their constituents will dominate decision-making when the voice of the party conflicts with the people’s voice and whether the MP’s representation in Parliament is dependent on party affiliation. This clarification would help to settle the matter of George Wright’s engagement as “fish or fowl” or independent. This cannot be a personal or party choice. Such decisions, that directly affect constituents, must reflect the will of the people.

2.The Will of the People: Street protests, press releases and social media commentary are insufficient mechanisms for people’s voice to be heard and acted upon during the term of office of an MP. Formal, institutional arrangements are needed at both the national and local levels to hear the will of the people on a regular basis as a matter of course. Town hall/online meetings, engagements in parliamentary committee deliberations, petitions, and referenda are among the arrangements that can be used to directly determine the people’s will after an election. The Wright incident has highlighted the urgent need for more meaningful parliamentary dialogue about the people’s business and, in so doing, directly incorporating the voice of the people in key decisions that directly affect them. Here, the move to limit the scope of the work of Parliament committees and the chairman by insisting that only matters coming up from the Parliament should be heard is a regressive step. The people’s representatives should be empowered to agree on matters that come before them. Given the unacceptable levels of crime and violence in Jamaica and the central role of violence in the matters surrounding Wright, a special select committee should be immediately established. It should examine the effectiveness of existing strategies to curb crime and violence, including violence against women and girls and, importantly, should hear the people’s voice on solving this national crisis. Until then, the existing Human Resource and Social Development Parliamentary Committee should urgently convene to start the dialogue. Ultimately, the people ought to be able to terminate representation through an impeachment or recall process in circumstances like those prevailing in the Wright matter, where issues of integrity, honesty, morality, violence against women and more are at stake.

3.Dominance of the executive in Parliament: Even with such parliamentary/legislative changes, the voice of the people will continue to be dwarfed by the dominance of executive decisions on Parliament’s agenda and the over-centralised power of the prime minister. Prime ministerial power to appoint and dismiss ministers is an effective leverage for compliance, especially among new, aspiring MPs. If left unchecked, MPs will continue to follow the party line as a central strategy for political survival and growth, and perpetuate their role primarily as agents of their party rather than primarily as representative of the people. It’s time to rethink the size of the non-executive legislators relative to the executive legislators to strengthen legislative control of Parliament as implied in Section 69(2) of the Constitution. We should also consider restructuring the Senate as an additional representative voice (rather than the voice of the parties) that could strengthen the representative voice of the people. However, such changes will require a shift in our popular political culture that have traditionally accepted unfettered executive and party leadership control as a political norm. Hence, the acceptance, especially among political actors, of the JLP’s leave of absence as the best sanction for Wright, rather than sanctions determined by the people of Westmoreland Central.

This is the (W)right time for us to rethink the real meaning of representation.

Rosalea Hamilton, PhD, is chief executive officer of LASCO Chin Foundation and founding director, Institute of Law & Economics, chair, Caribbean Philanthropic Alliance. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com