Constitutional Review Report recommends only At Large members be Premier & Deputy
In the report, laid by Premier and Minister of Finance Dr the Hon Natalio D Wheatley (R7) on the table of the House of Assembly (HoA) last week, many unpopular recommendations have been made.
The Commission recommends that the Territory adopt a system of direct election of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, drawing those candidates from only the pool of At-Large candidates and that only At Large members be eligible for Premier or Deputy Premier.
This is unheard of in a Westminster system of Government or in any of the 56 Commonwealth countries around the world, where the political parties chose the leaders.
A sixth Minister needed
The Commissioners also recommended in another model that all candidates run At Large. This is a system that was once in place but was debunked because of the lack of attention paid to the sister islands and communities that may not have someone in Parliament from their area.
The Constitutional Review Commission Report also recommended the formation of a Boundaries Commission following shifts in the population since the last such exercise and also to pave the way for the appointment of a sixth Minister.
The Report is to be debated in the fifth HoA by current elected members and is a public document.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
23 Responses to “Constitutional Review Report recommends only At Large members be Premier & Deputy”
Does that mean Natalio needs more than his 300 friends in family in his district? Sounds reasonable.
Many and I would more readily prefer that better governance can be realize, if the Premier and Deputy Premier run At Large, rather that district candidate winner be picked by a Party Leader.
In addition, in oder to help reduce dictatorship practices, such bribery of voters, a Two-Term maximum for Premier and Deputy Premier should be seriously consider, as are practice in may Countries, the UK and the USA being two of them. I suggest that district Term be also limit. Further addition, no person less than thirty years old should be allowed to contest for Premier and Deputy position. In other words, we don't need immature leaders in the Top political positions.
Enough is enough, even now too much.
Constitution review and helpful changes in vital in order for better governance to be experience in the BVI.
First, District Reps are disenfranchised and discriminated against because of their choice of running for elected office. Are we saying that based on a popularity contest the pool of At Large candidates automatically becomes more qualified than District Candidates to serve as Premier ? That is insulting, un-Democratic, discriminatory. The current process of governing is divisive but the proposal of electing the Premier and Deputy will be more divisive. The Westminister system is based on party system. Internal party ops promotes candidate (s) with the best qualification (s), demonstrated experience, personality, etc. to become Premier. What happens if all At Large candidates are from different party than Premier? Do we see problems in electing premier, governing, etc.? The current system of electing Premier by other elected members is not perfect but it is head and shoulders better than the proposal. Under the current system, other elected members can check the actions of Premier, if they put self-interest aside. Further, do candidates have to run specifically for Premier and Drputy Premier? Or running At Large makes them automatically Premier candidates? Delusional!!
Moreover, the Westminister system originated in England in the 13th Century, reducing the power of the Monarchy, and in addition to the UK, it is used by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a myriad of former colonies..The US users the presidential system, which its founders designed to be a divided malaise, dysfunction, etc. France has a hybrid presidential system.
Reflecting further, the current proposal can be made functional and workable if the Premier instead having elected members as ministers instead could select and appoint experienced people to lead various functions. For more oversight, a Senate can be created to slow things down a bit and put more eye balls on issues.Will the UK go along with the proposal which throws shade on its Westminster system.
See thetenets and meaning of true DEMOCRACY, AND THOSE WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTERS.
1. The CRC advocated that the constitution should not be about politics. But is it? Yes, it is about politics. Political parties are party of the Westminister and Presidential systems of government. Government are formed based on which party comprises the most elected members. Politics cannot be taken out of the constitution.
2. There is varying opinions on how to integrate At Large members into the government system. Is it doable? Yes, it is doable with a bicameral House, ie, a HOA, and Senate. The HoA can consist of Districts Reps, and the Senate consists of At Large members..The Senate will be the Upper Chamber. A senate is not a novel idea among OTs. For example Bermuda has a Senate which comprises 11 members; their HoA consists of 36 members..
3. The CRC is advocating that major recommendations should be taken to the public before being put on the agenda for negotiations with the UK. Should not these issues have been brought to the public long ago so that they could have been included in the agenda? YES! The CRC should have had an extended term, not a few months, to review the constitution.
4. Should the Premier and Deputy Premier be directly voted by the people? Yes. This can be facilitated by giving the Premier the authority to appoint qualified and experienced non-elected citizens to lead functions, ie, commissioner of Customs, Commissioner of Public Works, Commisioner of Public Safety, Commissioner of Education, Commissioner of Health, Commissioner of Economic Development, etc. I used the term commissioner but other terms can be used.
5. The VI is a representative democracy, ie, citizens vote to elect representatives to represent them in the HoA. So should they not have the ability to recall then. Yes. A process needs to be developed and implemented giving citizens the ability to recall a member(s). Citizens can required to collect a certain percentage of voters in the district from which the member is currently serving or if the member is At Large a similar process will be required. Voters will have a specific timeframe to collect verifiable signatures.