BELIZE SENATE IS A JOKE AND SERVES ONLY THE RULING PARTY.... HOW DUMB???? VERY DUMB!

...of FRESH air on KONCAS in terms of raising d INTELLECTUAL content of d debate and discussion on said forum...Often there is d lament that KONCAS has depreciated precipitously in terms of where it was qualityWISE yesteryear and where it is TODAY...Thus d likes of CHANDAR and well 2 B fair bzePEARL of late is an INDICATOR that all is NOT lost contentWISE on KONCAS, which brings me 2 d case in pt of d eLECTED vs APPTd SENATE!

I have maintained throughout that although there may be SOME merit 2 an ELECTED senate, i do NOT at this juncture C d justification 4 making d quantumSHIFT in d SYSTEM inherent in said proposal...B4 one is called upon 2 make a choice on d most appropriate mechanism 2 recruit SENATORs one needs 2 b INFORMED on d PROs and d CONs of an electedSENATE vs an apptSENATE...i.e., a NATIONAL dialogue on d issue needs 2 B convened.

Apparently there r those parties who know MORE about d eLECTED senate, or a least a VERSION of it, than others such as moa...however this enhanced knowledge as xprssd does NOT constitute an adequate XPLN of the CONFIG of d SENATE or indeed how it would B designed 2 wrk!!!

One of d fundamental flaws of d eLECTED senate as promulgated by d PROPONENTs of SAME entails a confusion of d terms OBJECTIVES vs STRATEGY...Most PPL whom r convinced or otherWISE inclined 2 believe that an eLECTED senate is better than an apptSENATE seem 2 assUME that d "elected" qualifier is somehow inherently better than d statusQUO, which is of course NOT necessarily so!...Cliches of babies & bathWATER and of course NOT fixing d unBROKEN would not necessarily b irrelevant here!!!

iBELIEVE that most PPL agree on TWO things in regards to the SUBJECT at hand…Firstly d SENATE did NOT wrk d way it was xpctd 2 under the past ADMIN…and SECONDLY d inclusion of d choice 4 an eLECTED senate on d BALLOT of d ’08 eLECTN a cpl wks ago was at best a desperate politicalPLOY by d PUPs and at worst an INSULT 2 d conCEPT of duePROCESS!!!

In relatn 2 d FIRST…d SENATE did NOT wrk d way it was xptd 2, not because d CONCEPT is inherently flawed, but because d PUPs especially perverted it…This is not 2 say that the UDPs r faultless, but d conduct of esp d politicalAPPTs and d outcome of d process THIS time around was a sorrowful MOCKERY 2 goodGOVERNANCE…d degree of rubberSTAMPING and d blatant nature of kowTOWING 2 d interest of d PARTY, which was with very little xcptn NOT coINCIDENT with d interest of d NATION, left very little doubt in heart of righTHINKING bzeans that d statusQUO was NOT d formula that would cure d ILLs of d NATION.

ONE would perhaps need 2 recall that d concept of an APPTD senate is preDICATED on d assUMPTION that those whom would B named 2 such POSITn would be MEN & WOMEN of goodCHARACTER and highSTANDING...AND thus d FAILURE of d process is NOT an indicator that d SYSTEM cannot work, but a reflection of d fact d SELECTION process by whom-so-ever would bring in its wake those CRITERIA that would screen 4 and ELIMINATE d sleight-of-hand & d wicked & d lawless & d dishonorable!!!

The question or WHOM would in its broadest sense, or indeed should sit on d SENATE is perhaps d most salient feature that has buoyed d let us "elect 'em" vs "appoint 'em" debate over d last cpl yrs...The TWO most critical feature of d SENATE is of course d need 4 BALANCE, and of course after they r THERE the need 4 CONDUCT that would b becoming of those that would ACT in the NATIONAL interest at ALL times and under ALL circumstances.

The question of BALANCE speaks 2 the need 4 representation from d various elements of SOCIETY: In these days d term CIVIL SOCIETY is a catchall crucible 2 capture d various interests of d BZE public…I believe that d representative SET in d SENATE needs 2 B broadened 2 incl REPs 4 d NGO conSERVATION Community, as well as INDUSTRY, Agric and d CBOs or communityBASED ORGs…That is in addn 2 those parties already represented!!!

Let d DEBATE and discussion continue on d MATTER!!!

Elected Senate would be the ideal, but the mechancisms are not in place yet. So the better thing for the moment, is the appointed senate (with the majority being not held by party in power). Hopefully, the details can be ironed out for the future.

When it comes to the Elected Senate, though, IMO, political parties should not be allowed to run for senate. Those running should do so as independents. Hopefully, that would help eliminate the influence the parties have over senators. This way senators would not feel allegiance to any political party.

Just my 2 cents.

BzeanPearl declares that an appointed Senate will yield good candidates if done 'properly'. The problem with this argument is that it pretends everyone shares the same goals. The question that defeats this declaration is "properly for whom?" Consider Chanona's resignation a while back, he was the PUP appointee to help PUP seem less corrupt. But he would rather resign than vote against monological Party view. the appointees are elected to serve the interests of the minority elite that constitute the nominating body. How to stop this repeating travesty?

Answer: A Proportionally Representative and Elected Senate

Great Benefits of the elected Senate (under a system of Proportional Representation)
-->greater autonomy:
Individual Senators will have the chance to assert an independence regardless of party affiliations. As it currently happens the appointed Senator seems to sign an unspoken contract with the politics of her appointing body first and foremost (rather than with her position or the people). The Elected Senator, on the other hand, is given the mandate by the people alone and therefore can always argue that her decisions come first from the people and not the party. In order for the Appointed Senator to express the same logic and argue for an autonomy of decision-making she must have a great and beneficent spirit (como Hulse) and face charges of disobedience and risk ostracism from her party affiliation.

-->Greater risk or uncertainty in Senate decision-making. (a good thing)
The chances for the majority party to trump any Senate decision fall sharply in an elected Senate of Proportional representation. The Senate will no longer be considered a 'joke' as there is, more often, a very real chance of a majority-party supported motion failing in Senate. It becomes harder to say all decisions are foregone conclusions that inevitably side with majority party.

-->Greater accuracy in representation.
In Belize, population is not equal in every district. In the house of representatives this is seen by how many seats are available for Belize City as compared to the rest of the country. In Proportional REpresentation and the elected Senate each district is given EQUAL numbers of representatives (plus a one or two extra representing the administrative district [which might be considered Belize City despite it not being the capital]) Therefore Toledo will elect just as many Senators as Orange Walk, Cayo as Belize etc. Therefore each district will have greater power in influencing decisions and a different (and i think more accurate) picture of the country is allowed.

How can an appointed Senate compete with this argument? It is still appointed according to the biases and party affiliations of that tiny, privileged minority that presume to consider the entire country in their selection of a nominee (they do not, as we all can see they are serving their narrow, short-sighted and often oligarchical motives)
Again, how can the appointed Senate compete with this version of the Senate?
In my opinion, it simply cannot.

it needs teeth. Can a minority hold up a bill and what constitutes a minority in the senate? What kind of power will a lonely voice in the wilderness have? So that brings the other question: If the senators will have this kind of power should they be elected or appointed.

it is my opinion that an appointed senate would yield the better candidates IF done properly. To me, an elected senate would have the same type of people we see running for political office now and that leaves a lot to be desired!The reality is that elections would be run along the same old red/blue lines! There are many,many principled, good thinking, successful people from various walks of life and ethnicity here in Belize that could be appointed, thereby, having "varied view points". The problem is that these people would NEVER offer themselves for an election but I feel if appointed they would then be willing to serve. They don't need or want electoral politics as they are not loyal to ANY party but rather to country! My suggestion of Godwin Hulse types is not for us to have cookie cutter replicas of the man and his ideas but rather to have his "spirit", willingness and dedication in running the senate the way it ought to be run! I am willing to wait and see how the Barrow appointed senate will operate even though I am definitely not satisfied with some of the people appointed as senators, they simply lack the capacity to move from behind party lines and look after the best interest of the citizens of this country. Supposedly, not having the majority in senate should make things mighty interesting! Most systems are good, but to have them run properly and the way they were envisioned to be run takes us right back to WHO is running the system. So to me,until the political parties put in place principled people,it will just be the same old, same old! See that happening any time soon?

belizean pearl, that is of course the question...but which system yields better candidates—by election or by nomination?

An elected senate can give fairer representation...but works only if you trust people to make sensible decisions.

The appointed senate has the benefit of a limited but informed/engaged selection...but only works if you trust the smaller set of selectors.

the only thing new that you are suggesting is that every possible senate candidate should be examined through a 'Godwin Hulse' looking-glass. We do not need multiple Hulses (even if his is the best spirit presently); there must be varied viewpoints and the best way to get this is by circumventing the established classed/raced/gendered conventions and instituting an elected Senate. And one of "Proportional Representation".

what would you like to see?? How would it work??

both have their good points and bad points but the bottom line is that no matter which one is employed, it will only serve the good of the people depending on WHO the SENATORS are!! Whenever we get more Godwin Hulse type of people then and only then will the interest of Belizeans be served!

I do not understand the statement. It seems you imply that the entire system is somehow under some one-party hegemony.

The ruling-party has too much power but wouldn't a simple re-evaluation of the ratio 7:3:3 instate the desired effect?
And did not Barrow promise a senate reform, not to the lengths of an elected Senate, but to the downgrading of the ruling-party majority?

The Elected Senate sounds like an excellent idea if, as Senator Hulse has cautioned, it is SERIOUSLY considered and investigated (not suggested as a political ploy).

Belize might adopt the interesting system of proportional representation—such as in Australia—after comprehensively re-vamping it to suit our particular situation.

An elected senate, with each district getting an equal amount of representatives would bring minority perspectives to the table more and would reflect the desires of the electorate as a whole in a different and useful way. Instead of Belize City getting so much power, Garifuna and Maya concerns in the South (for example) might be given greater representation in the Senate and subsequently Belize's laws would reflect these overlooked 'minority' concerns.

The real problem is that representatives can't cross the asil to the other side if they disagree with the leadership of their party. They should be there to represent the people not the party. The fact that it is political suicde to do so is asine.

If that one piece of legislation was removed, it would free represenatives to really try to represent their consistionsy.

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, pee in it, and serve it to the people that piss you off. And supa-fly koncas has some fries if you want some! (No ideal what he might have done with them though :)