The Tribune

IN The Bahamas, we enjoy a vigorous democracy inherited at independence in 1973 from Britain as the former colonial power, we need always to be vigilant in protecting it in an uncertain world. It is all too easy to take for granted our liberty and constitutional rights guaranteed by the rule of law and judicial system which, despite its lack of efficiency and need for reform works reasonably well.

Sadly, the threat to the freedom and democratic rights of Bahamians can come from our own leaders rather than from outside forces. In this small country politicians, particularly those who become government ministers, tend to forget that they have been elected to represent the interests of their constituents and they often become arrogant and dictatorial after assuming office. The checks and balances, which are effective in curbing political power in larger countries and more mature democracies are simply ignored or overridden here. Over the years, there have also been too many instances of politicians taking advantage of their positions to enrich themselves personally in dubious circumstances.

With breathtaking disdain for the wishes of the Bahamian people, the current PLP government chose to circumvent the “no” vote in the referendum on gambling by legalising the betting shops. Later, its reaction to the referendum on gender equality, which it lost after campaigning in favour, was simply that of “business as usual” with no hint of ministerial resignations let alone that of the Prime Minister himself who had then lost two referenda; and then there has been the sorry spectacle of the recent parliamentary privilege affair with a Cabinet Minister failing to respect a court ruling against him.

Against this background, it is salutary to watch events unfolding in Britain, the oldest democracy, following the decision in its referendum in June to leave the European Union. One notable development is the legal challenge by a group of so-called “concerned citizens” in reaction to Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans under royal prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 of the EU Lisbon Treaty (the formal procedure for a member state to leave the Union) and thus launch the “Brexit” negotiations without giving the United Kingdom parliament the right to vote on the issue.

The group claims that, by denying Members of Parliament the opportunity of a vote, the government is undermining the sovereignty of parliament. In response, the government contends that triggering Article 50 without prior parliamentary approval will only be firing the starting gun for the “Brexit” process which reflects the will of the British people. Any new treaty with the EU which arose from the “Brexit” negotiations would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

This case was heard earlier in the week in the UK’s High Court in front of the Lord Chief Justice supported by two other senior judges. They reserved their judgment with the promise to deliver a ruling as quickly as possible.

The significance of this for us in The Bahamas is the fact that the case should have proceeded at all in the midst of the fierce domestic post-Brexit controversy about how Britain should implement the result of the referendum. Mrs May’s government had already announced its decision to go ahead and invoked Article 50, so presumably it would have preferred that such a case should not happen, but it would surely have been unthinkable for the government to seek to interfere with this process. So time was found quickly for the High Court to hear a challenge by a small group of citizens who were concerned about parliamentary sovereignty.

This should surely be viewed as an example of the exercise of democracy at its best in a nation whose legal system has been the envy of the world. We believe it should be a lesson for our own politicians of the importance of respecting the rule of law, which should remain sacrosanct, and never interfering for political reasons in our country’s judicial system.