How Can The People's Choice Be Bad For Democracy? - October 24, 2001

by Earl Bousquet

There’s a strange school of thought going around, to the effect that the decision of the electorate to return a 16-1 result in the last general election was “bad for democracy”. Holders of that same school of thought also argue today that the self-destruction of the Alliance was also “bad for democracy”.

It’s as if anything that turns out to be good for the Labour Party is bad for democracy. Now, I can’t remember that view being offered in 1983, when the UWP won a 14-3 majority in that year’s general elections. Nor did we hear it when the UWP enticed a Labour MP to cross the floor after the electorate twice in 24 days returned a verdict of 9-8 in consecutive general elections.

Be that as it may, let’s consider the claim that 16-1 for Labour was bad for democracy in 1997; and that the more recent implosion of the Alliance was also bad for democracy. The holders of that view clearly have a severely restricted and clearly isolated interpretation of what democracy really means. They freeze democracy and place it above the will of the people -- as if the will of the people, as expressed in free and fair general elections, is not the ultimate expression of democracy. So, rather than respecting the will of the electorate, they blame the voters for their choice and lament their ultimate decision.

It would be okay if those who so romanticize democracy as to be blinded to its ultimate expression would only limit themselves to theorizing about how to get out of that particular and peculiar dilemma. But there is enough evidence to suggest that since the last general election, some who hold that view have practically opted to try their best to fill the void left by what they consider to be an insufficient parliamentary opposition presence. Now that even their best efforts to bolster the Alliance have failed, they are openly crying over its demise and deeming it a blow to democracy.

Those who see democracy as something static, inflexible and unrelated to other factors need to understand that democracy is constantly in motion. It is both a concept and a living reality. It takes various forms in different situations. So, if the ultimate expression of democracy is by the people as expressed in the ballot box, then their decision, the result of their ultimate expression, deserves ultimate respect. It therefore cannot be described as “a mistake”; or as being “bad for democracy”.

If we are to talk about democratic openings, this government has allowed for more free democratic expression than any other in our living history. Freedom of the Press has never been so evident and never, ever been so taken advantage of. The Prime Minister has been taking democracy to the communities by subjecting his ministers to direct interface with the people, in their communities, through official visits, to discuss parliamentary representation and government’s performance in the respective communities. The run-offs being carried out by the ruling party in various constituencies are also aimed at affording an equal, democratic chance to anyone who wants to challenge a sitting MP to do so. And never before has there been such democratic consultation between government and its traditional social partners, the Private Sector and the Trade Unions. Similarly, there has never been as much interface between the Government and the other important institutions, such as in the banana and tourism industries, among others.

Surprisingly, those who selectively criticize apparent aberrations of democracy have so far failed to criticize the government and ruling party for not yet having lived up to its election promise to ban the act of “crossing the floor” by having such MPs go back to the polls. Yet another MP has crossed the floor and so has a Senator. But no word about them… Could it be because they belong to what still calls itself The Alliance?

Those among us who claim to be human pillars of democracy should strive to be more honest and consistent and less hypocritical in application of their theory. Selecting to be selectively critical and opting for selective blindness -- or selective amnesia, for that matter -- amounts to nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. And that, by itself, is very bad for democracy.

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Search Prime Minister Press Secretary ] [Site Help]

© 2001 Government Information Service. All rights reserved.

Read our privacy guidelines.