.png)
Term Limits for Premier & Deputy & recall provision recommended in CRC Report
The report recommends not only that the Premier and Deputy Premier come from the At Large pool of elected officials, but that they have term limits. This again is unusual in Westminster forms of Government.
While the Commissioners suggested that the issue of Terms Limits could go to a referendum, the Commission recommended: “that in the event that a decision is made that the positions of Premier and Deputy Premier be voted for directly, the Commission would recommend that consideration be given to implementing term limits for holding such offices.”
Additionally, the Commission recommended that elected officials should be recalled. This flies in the face of democratic principles, as the people would have decided at the ballot box. The Constitutional Review Commission recommended that legislation should be enacted to provide a recall mechanism and section 67(3) of the Constitution to include circumstances where a Member of the House of Assembly (HoA) has been recalled as an additional ground for vacating his or her seat in the HoA.
Recall members of the HoA
According to the report, the recall legislation should define grounds on which a recall mechanism can be triggered and include serious breaches of the Code of Conduct prescribed by the Integrity in Public Life Act 2021 as a ground for recall.
Further recommended by the Commissioners is to ensure that the threshold for signatures needed to initiate the recall process is sufficiently high to make recall the last resort, not the norm; and establish a ‘safe harbour period’ after assumption of office before recall mechanisms can be initiated. This is to give elected representatives adequate time to deliver on promises.
The Commissioners also stated that the recall mechanism should be designed with the following considerations; striking a balance between giving elected representatives freedom to perform their jobs and make difficult decisions when necessary and holding them to account when they do not maintain certain standards of conduct.
A majority of political scientists who have studied this matter have posited that recall provisions could lead to political instability, going against the will of the people in a democracy after they have voted and allowing those who oppose the winning elected Member to remain in a constant battle. In other words, they could not beat them at the ballot box, so the recall mechanism could be the only way.
.png)
Follow Us On
18 Responses to “Term Limits for Premier & Deputy & recall provision recommended in CRC Report”
running for the premier should be an independent process(put all names in that hat) and the people will speak at the poles
no political party should be nominating our leader; those days have done
we need a substantial change in the political process as we move forward
No country should be ran by a group of super idiots. It’s inane.
If "the people" petition successfully for a recall election, is that not grass-roots democracy in action? How does the will of the people fly in face of democracy again?
Maybe the author went to the Trump School of Political Science.
Also term limits is for big nations like the U.S.A. where they have millions of people in their resource pool. This is nothing but sour grapes. If the people of the district want a particular person every election let it be so until they are unwanted. If they are doing enough good to be re-elected repeatedly it is bc they are beating the other johnny come lately candidates. Why penalize the entire district to appease some sour grapes election losers.
I think those recommendations are nonsense b/c they don't account for every situation are reactionary. And the ReCall thing is dangerous and terrible, there is already a solution for that, vote them out when election comes around again.
Though some persons will reject the CRC reported recommendations for selfish reasons, the majority, if not all, of them are overwhelmingly positive, if we are seriously about better governance for the people of the BVI, that are natives, residents, belongers, visitors, and friends.of this British Overseas Territory, namely: British Virgin Islands.
The CoI recommendations demand changes,especially from local political manipulation, unjust hand outs of moneys to special interest persons for political you-wash-hand-I wash-your and suchlike.
Changes is daily reality of how to improve peoples lives worldwide. Why not the same in the BVI. However, only good changes for the betterment of all our people should be rival against.
We are now living in the 21st Century AD, the third decade, February 7, 2024. Reformation of especially our political mindset must not allowed to continue in the same manner, if better governance is to be a experience by the people that has been, and still are suffering injustice.
Constitution Reformation now, independence status, when that time comes.
It is an insult to the intelligence, the UN charters and human dignity of these islands to live under the rule of an imperialist nation and person.
The people of this territory are beyond capable of ruling themselves.
Those who are using the notion of corruption to negate the people's human rights are also not in understanding of democratic principles.
There are two camps of political inds in this territory 1) the ones who want to remain insignficant subjects to an imperielist system and 2) those who yearn for and to rule themselves because they can.
They country must become free and begin to chart its own course and destiny.
As things are now, radical political, economical changes of the way our Country is being run is unacceptable to about approximately 90% or greater of the people that regularly live in the BVI suffer: 1. mostly because of political mismanagement of our finances: 2 high prices of basic needs:. 3. Stupid spending, etc.
Truth is seemingly a hard pill to swallow, but after been swallowed, the healing process.begins. let the healing begin.
POSITIVE CHANGES:
at large system of government
Over the past weeks there have been a flurry of commentary in the press concerning possible elections in early 2023.
There were a number of interesting areas mentioned, from lack of confidence for party leaders to the thought provoking topic of removing the at large system all together from the election process.
The at large system is interesting in that it has shaped our political landscape over the past years. It was first introduced by the UK to affect the then Lavity Stoutt VIP administration. Although it took a while to be used effectively in counteracting the in district aspect of elections, it also took a dark turn and was utilized by future administrations to use popular vote as the basis for winning an election. One thing that has been obvious is that neither systems have been effective enough to satisfy the needs of the populace and more so the needs of local indigenous British Virgin Islanders.
The greatest downfall of the at large system in its current application is that it only adds numbers to assist in getting the right amount of candidates to win election but it doesn’t ensure synergy between the candidates and the portfolios that are filled after election therefore making the probability for an effective government to diminish.
After reviewing the information in the blogs over the past few weeks addressing the state of BVI politics, here is my suggestion for a more effective system. Feel free at the end to criticize dismiss or give suggestions which you feel are more fitting.
First of all the BVI is a very tiny territory. It is not a country but a colony of England. Despite that, the BVI does enjoy a certain level of autonomy over the past years and acts in a similar manner as an independent country. I firmly believe that the at large system is not working but it can be structured in a way that can make it a feasible mechanism for change in a positive way. As part of our constitutional review I would like to see us consider the following. We should keep the 9 seats in district but add another 2 seats for Anegada and Jost Van Dyke respectively. Additionally Virgin Gorda has grown in development and population to the point where it can now have 2 seats in government. So another seat would have to be created which would bring the total in district seats to 12. I also suggest that we raise the amount of at large seats from 4 to the following 7:
Premier / Minister of Finance
Minister of Tourism and Culture
Minister of Education
Minister of Communications and works
Minister of Health
Minister of Natural Resources and Labor
Speaker of the House
What I am suggesting is that the premier does not represent a district instead he or she represents the country and the same argument holds for the Labour minister or any of the other ministers who represents the entire population, not a district, class or creed of people in the British Virgin Islands.
What a system such as the one described above would do, is it adds relevance to at large candidates and would force political parties to choose candidates wisely not only by popularity but also the skill set that they have as it relates to the portfolio for which each candidate is vying. In essence if put in place the voting public should be able to look at the candidates to see if each candidate in their mind is (a) qualified to hold the post which he or she is vying for or (b) have the maturity or demeanor in carrying out the position.
I am a firm believer that 5 ministries are not enough and as a tourist destination, Tourism should have its own ministry and should be peered with culture. Although Tourism doesn’t generate the revenue of the financial services sector I still believe it is the most important pillar of our economy and has been neglected for far too long.
Notice that I also believe the speaker of the house should be voted at large.
Also the public should have the right to call for a no confidence vote on any elected member if he or she fails to perform their duties or abuse their power in office. In the words of or great former leader Lavity Stoutt “he who appoints can also disappoint.”
I will not speak on who should make up the opposition because I think that if a system as described above were to be considered it would make it easier to devise a system for an opposition.
One of the arguments you would hear from elected officials is that the premier has never been voted at large before and each winning party should reserve the right to choose their premier. My answer to this is that the president of the United States is voted by all the states and the same system occurs all over the world and if it is our aspirations to be like leading countries around the world shouldn’t we follow suit?
Another argument would be that by implementing such a system you can end up with a composition of multiple parties forming the government and they may not be willing or able to work together as each party have different goals. My answer to this is BVI is a very small county of which indigenous BV Islanders are already in the minority and that number keeps shrinking day by day as we attend funerals every week as our people continue to die and get phased out of a country that our forefathers built that we have allowed to slip through our hands by keeping each other down. The BVI is too small for individuals elected by the public not to work together for the greater good of the country. Don’t you want to see a society where everyone is given an opportunity to work, have improved infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, roads, access to safe and clean drinking water, world class telecommunications, reasonable power supply with use of fossil fuel and alternative energy sources, sporting facilities, year round tourism, embracing foreign investment, dialogue with USVI to support the BVI economy the way we support their economy which would give significant meaning to friendship day. These should be the type of goals an elected official elected by the public at large should be striving towards for the benefit of the country.
In closing, for far too long politicians have been using the votes of naive poor people to enriching themselves.
We the public need to say enough is enough. We need to be a part of the decision making process that determines who our representatives will be and to hold them accountable as we cannot continue to suffer as we flip flop parties in and out that do nothing in the interest of the public. Take a drive from East End to West End and look at the infrastructure in the territory and ask yourself has there been any true development in the BVI in the past 20 years.
Undoubtedly, there must be recalled mechanisms in place to recall elected members. However, the recall mechanisms cannot be only bureaucratic mechanisms but must include voter recall mechanism(s). For example, a process must be available for voters to engineer a recall of a district or at large member by collecting a reasonable, specific number of signatures of voters who partake in the last election in which the member was elected. It is a democracy which means of the people, by the people, and for the people. The words must be more than words on a paper. Let’s put democracy in active action.