Dear Editor,

The primary role of the Senate in Jamaica is to review Bills passed by Members of Parliament (MP). The Senate can amend those Bills; however, the MPs can reject those changes and bypass the Senate, so that the legislation goes directly to the governor general for assent.

The numerical composition of the Senate is intended to ensure that measures requiring a two-thirds majority vote cannot pass without the vote of at least one Opposition senator. I believe these powers should remain, and no new powers should be given to the Senate so that the directly elected House of Representatives continues to be the main forum for executive oversight and control over the purse strings.

However, I fully endorse the proposal for an elected Senate, but not the model proposed by Dr Rosalea Hamilton. Instead, Jamaica should adopt a party list model of proportional representation used in countries like Colombia.

In my proposed system, each political party presents a list of candidates equal in number to the number of Senate seats. The number of Senate seats won by a party will depend on the proportion of votes received for their list. A party list would require a minimum percentage of votes to be entitled to representation. Parties would also indicate their preferred order of the individuals on their list who would become senators depending on how many seats they have won. Senators can be removed, but their replacement must come from the same list presented at the general election.

For example, let’s say there are 100 seats in the Senate. If Party A’s list receives 50 per cent of the vote, it gets 50 seats, and its top 50 listed candidates are elected. If the minimum vote threshold is 5 per cent and Party B achieves that mark, it gets 5 seats, and its top 5 listed candidates are elected to the Senate.

There are several benefits to this approach:

1) As Dr Hamilton argued, a directly elected body is more democratic than the current system of appointment.

2) Direct popular input is desirable because senators sit in one chamber of the country’s law-making body.

3) There are few other opportunities for direct popular influence on the law-making process.

4) It is more transparent because political parties would be forced to indicate, prior to the election, the individuals they propose for membership in the Upper House.

5) It is more participatory because it moves the choice of senators from the sole prerogative of two people (the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition) to involve all voters.

6) It could lead to more scrutiny of legislation, especially where the party that won a majority of seats in the Lower House did not gain a majority of votes for its Senate list.

7) It might give third parties an incentive to organise themselves in a way that could secure at least one seat in Parliament.

I should acknowledge potential counterarguments:

1) There will be gridlock if the two chambers of Parliament are led by different parties. However, under my proposal, the legislative power of the Senate would not change if the elected MPs insist that they do not accept Senate amendments, Bills can still be sent to the governor general for assent.

2) A direct vote for a list could lead to one party having enough votes to change entrenched provisions of the constitution. If historical popular vote trends are any indication, this is very unlikely. However, even if a single party receives two-thirds of the Senate seats, the stipulation in the Constitution (Amendment) (Republic) Bill that there must be Opposition votes to amend entrenched constitutional provisions mitigates that risk.

3) The Senate should include individuals who are not aligned with any political party (the so-called independent senators). The thrust of these proposals is to add more direct democracy to our system of governance.

The exclusion of persons who were not sanctioned in some way by the electorate is therefore a positive aspect.

I hope the joint select committee of Parliament reviewing the Constitution (Amendment) (Republic) Bill, 2024 will consider these and other similar recommendations.

Advocate for Meaningful Reform