Is this democracy?

It is natural that any party would try to win as many seats as possible in any election. But this is different from saying that the purpose of such a victory is to pass specific laws, because what that implies is that these laws are going to contravene our Constitution. Were this not the case, the PNM would not need the advantage of a special majority in the Parliament.

There are no fewer than 75 sections in the Constitution which cannot be altered with less than two-thirds of the votes in the Lower and Upper Houses. And, lest we forget, some of the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter 1 of our Constitution are (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; (c) the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life; (d) the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions; (e) the right to join political parties and express political views; (f) the right of a parent or guardian to provide a school of his own choice for the education of his child or ward; (g) freedom of movement; (h) freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance; (I) freedom of thought and expression; (j) freedom of association and assembly; and (k) freedom of the press.

None of these can be interfered with — unless the ruling party holds sufficient seats in the Parliament to provide a special majority. It might be argued — and, indeed, has been — that legislation which may contravene citizens’ constitutional rights is necessary to combat certain social ills — chief among them, crime. But the present wave of crime is not going to be stopped by interfering with any of the rights listed above — it will be stopped by effective police work and the modernising of the bureaucracy of the Police Service.

No doubt Mr Khan, and his political leader Patrick Manning, believe that they would use the powers of an absolute majority only for good. Yet, with just 21 out of 36 seats in the Lower House, the Manning administration plans to pass a law which will prevent public interest litigation; has exempted several State institutions from the Freedom of Information Act in order to make government less transparent; and has put out a Draft Broadcast Code which will stymie the media. All these measures arguably impinge on sections (a), (d) and (k) of Chapter 1, Part 1, of the Constitution.

Our concern is not so much that the PNM will win an absolute majority in the next election. That is unlikely. But we are concerned about the mindset of the ruling party’s leaders, who seem to have forgotten the principles of their founder. In 1971, when a political boycott resulted in a Government without an Opposition, Dr Eric Williams took measures to "ensure that alternative views (were) heard and respected." Dr Williams understood, as Mr Manning apparently does not, that if a majority tends to corrupt, an absolute majority corrupts absolutely.