Persons elected to the House of Representative from the thirty one constituencies in our country are required to conduct themselves within certain prescribed standards.  Section 58 of the Belize Constitution describes those conditions necessary for the removal of elected Representatives. The circumstances that warrant removal include crossing the floor (switching political parties), prolonged absenteeism, criminal conviction, bankruptcy, insanity, conflict of interest vis a vis government, among others. Unless these protocols are violated, then an elected Representative serves his constituents for the life of that Parliament, usually a term of five years.    

This week, the UDP Government made public a proposed Recall Law that would bring into force new conditions under which elected Representatives would be removed from office before serving their full term.

The Recall Law will allow for only 30% of the voters in any constituency to sign a petition asking for a recall, which once verified triggers a yes or no vote on the standing of the Elected Representative. The petition for the removal of the Representative does not even have to cite the reasons for his removal. If that Representative loses the poll by a simple majority (with 65% voter turnout), he or she is automatically removed from the House and is disqualified from the subsequent bye-election for his replacement.

30% sets the bar scandalously low. If reliable opinion polls could be done in Belize, very few if any elected Representative would have an approval rating of greater than 70%. In other words, for 30% of the voters in a particular constituency to express dissatisfaction with their Representative at any given time would be normal, especially given the polarity that exists where our two party system has effectively cut the electorate in half, with a sliver of “independents” who swing elections from red to blue and back. In the recent General Election, only 3 of 31 seats delivered more than 70% of the votes to the victor.

Allowing 30% of voters with a simple signature to undermine the will of 51% or more that supported that Representative is patently undemocratic. How can 30% veto 51%? Take the case of Corozal South East, currently represented by Hon. Florencio Marin Jr., who secured 2452 votes versus 2436 for his UDP opponent. This Recall Law would allow 30% of the voters in Corozal South East or just 1679 signatures to trigger a recall election. 1679 is more than 30% less than the losing UDP candidate obtained on February 7, 2008. Yet, these mere signatures would trump the ballots of the majority of the voters.  

There is also the unfair advantage that accrues to the Party in government in the case of a recall election. That party, currently and conveniently the UDP, would intimidate voters to achieve the 30% threshold; once the election is triggered, the UDP would then utilize the immense resources of the government to defeat the duly elected PUP Representative.

“Vote for the UDP candidate – only he or she can help you” would be the obvious campaign slogan.

This manner of intimidation is far less effective in a General Election when all seats are at stake and there is genuine uncertainly about which party will form the new government. And even if a Representative targeted in a recall survives, he may be substantially weakened and thus vulnerable in a subsequent election.

An even more egregious flaw in the proposed Recall Law is the disqualification of the recalled candidate from standing for the subsequent election. The Belize Constitution guarantees equality to every citizen under the law and guarantees freedom from discrimination. How can the UDP government discriminate and disqualify any Belizean from seeking elected office? This disqualification provision would appear to be targeting specific individuals with the intention of removing them from public life. But such a targeted, unconstitutional campaign is not the way of a democracy: individuals are removed from public life when the voters reject them in free and fair elections.

Without campaign finance reform to reduce the power of big money, whether that money is private sector money or taxpayers’ money, recall elections will further impair our democracy, awarding elections to the highest bidder and eroding the power of the people.

Imagine the chaos of recall elections in multiple constituencies, possibly at the same time. Imagine the uncertainty of recall elections in marginal constituencies after a General Election where the margin of victory is one or two seats. Imagine the political and economic instability of recall elections in addition to village council elections, water board elections, municipal elections and general elections.

What Barrow and the UDP should propose is a Recall Law for the Government to be recalled and fresh General Elections held. After all, individual Representatives can only perform for their constituencies to the extent that they are supported by the Government. Elected PUP representatives do not receive funding for scholarships, housing, healthcare assistance, streets, sports and other community needs. In fact, many elected UDP Representatives won’t receive such funding either, making them vulnerable for recall by their own Party, as the UDP civil war unfolds.   

This proposed Recall Law is the latest in a sequence of legal maneuvers by the UDP government designed to undermine the Belize Constitution and erode the fundamental rights and freedoms of Belizeans. After just six months in office, their record is already blemished by their amendments to the Referendum Act and proposed amendments to the Belize Constitution.

This Recall Law is a sneak attack on our democracy, intended to destabilize the Opposition PUP and subvert the will of the people as expressed in their secret ballots. It is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. The UDP Government should expect to meet fierce Opposition to this proposal in the Courts, in Parliament and in the streets.