By Winfield Williams

This cannot be said to be a change in any basic sense. To illustrate by an analogy, if a philanderer cuts the number of his lovers from six to three, he is still a philanderer.

The Role of Senators

Therefore, this proposal for retaining Senators, is perhaps a most undesirable instance of "thinking inside the box". For it carries over all of the same basic problems we have had with the inclusion of senators in the system of governance. Everybody has, at one time or the other, been aware that senators have always sat uneasily in Parliament because they lack the legitimacy enjoyed by elected members. And this is especially so when they are nominated after being previously rejected at the polls; or when the become Ministers. But their unease resides more in their role in the House.

It is no secret that Senators are nominated only to provide "backative" to the adversarial groups in Parliament. The idea that they are brought into the House in the national interest is ludicrous. Senators do not respond to anything "national" since their role and perspectives are delimited by the machinations of the groups which nominated to Parliament.

Senators and Constitutional Reform

Let us move now to looking at the proposals for Senators within the context of our attempts to reform our constitution. The motive for reform resides in two related desires: 1) the strengthening of our democracy, allowing for more meaningful participation of the people in governance; and 2) the reduction of the crass partisanship which stultifies social progress.

Thus, when we consider the proposals for keeping senators with their existing role in Parliament, it is reasonable to conclude that they are counteractive to our attempts at constitutional change. In the first place, their lack of legitimacy undermines the whole idea of democracy. Second, and related, their firm attachment to the political parties represented in the house can only strengthen the partisanship which we are trying to reduce. And in this connection, we must remember that there is another proposal for increasing the number of elected members in the House.

Civil Society, NACE and Senators

Further, their presence is anathema to the proposal for the integration of Civil Society in the governance system. This is so because Civil Society is being included to bring a strong non-partisan, national perspective to the issues of governance. On another level NACE also has this function. In these two cases, we can see a direct shift away from partisanship to a more national approach to governance. This is why it is difficult to understand why Senators are needed when they have an orientation that is diametrically opposed to this approach.

It could only be that the CRC are guilty of tunnel vision. In fact, this proposal for retaining partisan senators seems to be mere consolation for the political parties who seem to be losing their power in the face of more national and democratic arrangements. But these are the arrangements that we say we want as a nation. Why therefore do we back off now by retaining senators?

It is true that the partisan consciousness pervades the society. However, the time has come to do something about the kinds of impulses that this consciousness seems to engender. Heavens knows that they have caused nothing but grief and backwardness in our little country! We must, for our survival, get rid of the debilitating trappings of this consciousness. And we will do well in this regard by forgetting about partisan senators. Whether we nominate them or elect them, they will be a hindrance to our new system of governance.