Former head of the public service Reginald Dumas says Government should have put the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2014 on hold, and established an independent team, including a United Nations expert on elections, to consult with citizens.
The bill, which proposes two-term limits for prime ministers, the right to recall non-performing MPs and a runoff vote, was approved with amendments in the Senate on Thursday night with the votes of Independent Senators Dr Rolph Balgobin, Dhanayshar Mahabir and David Small.It will now be returned to the House of Representatives for the amendments to be accepted.
But speaking in a telephone interview yesterday, Dumas said he would have preferred the legislation be put on hold to allow for the new team to be set up.Dumas said the independent committee should have been made to focus "not so much the runoff proposal (but) a fair system of voting."
He said a UN expert would have been able to speak about the first-past-the-post system, proportional representation, runoff and everything connected with elections, adding that at the end of the consultations the views could have been taken to Parliament.
Dumas said he agreed in principle with the other two features of the legislation–term limits for prime ministers and recall of MPs. He said, however, that he was not aware of the details of the amended legislation and would be unable to comment in detail.
The lack of adequate public consultation on the bill was the element which concerned him most, he said.
He said as far as he was aware the runoff proposal was never properly put before the national community for consideration, adding that if that was done the legislation "would have far more validity than the views of 41 MPs (House of Representatives) and 31 (senators)."
The Independents who voted with the Government have been described as "sellouts" by others who were opposed to the legislation.
Questioned about this, Dumas said it was unfair to claim they were such. He said citizens should respect the position of the three Independents because it was their determination after the facts before them on the bill. He said the people who supported the Government would probably say the three "were brave senators who stood up for what they believed in."
"They did their job as they saw fit, whether we agree or disagree and I don't think it would be fair to attack them because they saw things in a certain way."