Voters must approve tenure extension

THE EDITOR: Reference is made to your news report and commentaries on the Privy Council ruling (May 19 and after) overturning lower courts' verdicts (High Court and Court of Appeal) on the postponement of local government elections.

For those familiar with constitutional rule in democratic countries, the PC’s ruling was not surprising. What was surprising was the lower courts’ siding with the Government on denying voters the right to choose elected representatives. The lower courts should have utilised a loose interpretation of the Constitution rather than a narrow strict interpretation.

In a democracy, a government cannot take away the power of voters to choose their representatives. Even in the midst of covid19, the length of term of representation was not extended in any democracy in the world. Elections were held everywhere.

The Government cannot simply pass an act in Parliament to extend the tenure of elected office bearers. Such a measure usurps the power or right of voters to choose their reps. It is inimical to democracy to not consult voters to extend the tenure of elected officers. Only a referendum (with majority supporters in the affirmative) can extend the tenure of elected office holders.

In extreme situations, like a disaster or national war, an election can be postponed under "a doctrine of necessity" for public safety for a limited period. But postponing elections in order to pass a bill to empower local government does not meet the criteria of an emergency.

The Government had postponed the local elections due by the end of last December in order to ready a bill to empower local government. The public consistently complained that local government bodies lack power (and resources) to do an effective job. They are not self-reliant and are not semi-sovereign (as in developed countries like the US and Canada or a developing country like India with resources to develop neighbourhoods.

In Trinidad, local government depends on the central government for a budget. Historically, going back to 1962, all governments spoke of empowering local government but none actually delivered. The public had hoped that Prime Minister Rowley would deliver when he promised in 2015 to empower local bodies to run and manage their own affairs. He had one of the most progressive and far-reaching proposals (similar to the THA Assembly Act) to empower local entities. But it is yet to be legislated.

Local government elections cannot be put off even if it is done for a laudable goal of empowering it as proposed by the PM. People have a right to choose their representatives.

The lower courts ruled (in agreement with the lawyers of the Government) that the Constitution, while granting voters the right to vote in national elections, does not specifically grant voters the right to a ballot in local government. That is a very narrow interpretation of the wording in the Constitution.

When the Constitution was drafted, local bodies were not given much thought by the drafters and the founding fathers. Since then, there have been countless constitutions and court rulings worldwide on electing representatives. Precedents exist globally granting voters the right to choose representatives in all elections held for government offices.

Although not specifically stating that the voters have a right to choose local representatives, the fact that there are local government bodies with fixed terms and the precedent exists that voters choose their representatives, it necessarily follows that voters cannot be denied an opportunity to choose them in a free and fair election.

The Privy Council is right that the electorate cannot be deprived of the right and benefit to choose their representatives to represent their interests as this would adversely impact on the democratic system of TT. Every person eligible to vote is entitled to do so and to exercise that right in choosing representatives and to be consulted via a referendum to extend the tenure of elected reps.

DR VISHNU BISRAM

via e-mail