By Dylan Vernon, TIME COME #19, 2 January 2025.
At 11:45 pm on a cool 2025 election night, the final constituency result is in. Post-independence political history is made. It’s a clean sweep for the Blues! The PUP 31, the UDP 0. Amid the wild celebrations and the deep despair, a still energetic Jules Vasquez asks his tired panel: So, there is no Leader of the Opposition? Who will appoint the Opposition’s three senators? Who will chair the Joint Public Accounts Committee? Who will appoint Opposition members to such bodies as the Belize Advisory Council and the Elections and Boundaries Commission? With whom will the PM consult or seek concurrence when the Constitution so demands?
Unprecedented?
The inspiration for this post came from my Dad, Larry Vernon – information specialist, historian, writer, serial biographer. He sent me a query in writing – as is his style – reminding that, before independence, the PUP had clean sweep elections in 1957 (the last Legislative Assembly) and 1961 (the first House of Representatives). As such, since the 1954 adult suffrage Constitution, there are two precedents for clean sweeps in Belize’s political history – but none after independence.
In 1961, the then British Governor used his reserve powers to appoint an unelected Philip Goldson to the very first House of Representatives. The Governor argued that having an opposition voice in the House would help to foster multi-party parliamentary democracy. Of course, this was also part of the British attempts to blunt the ascent of the Price-led nationalist movement.
But what my Dad really wanted to discuss is whether such clean sweeps are “threats to democracy that may result in dictatorships.” I suspect that election 2025 wasn’t far from his mind. Others may be asking the same.
Far-Fetched in ‘25’?
Although there have been no clean sweeps in post-independence Belize, could 2025 be the year? The People’s United Party (PUP), still on a high from wipe-out elections in 2020 (national), 2021 and 2024 (both local), has gale force winds in its political sails. While core problems of poverty, inequity, insecurity and corruption persist, the economy is growing, tourism has re-bounded, sugar has set a new export record, unemployment is low, and National Health Insurance is expanding. Significantly, ‘budgets’ for voter-inducements and election-time gimmicks seem to be robust. Rumours of an early election abound.
But more critical than all the PUP strengths is the Opposition’s on-going self-destruction. At least currently, the United Democratic Party (UDP) is too divided to provide but token competition to the PUP incumbents and new aspirants. Unless we include the UDP break-off faction, Alliance for Democracy, no other credible political party has yet stepped-up that has a chance to win a seat 2025.
Given the political history of no clean sweeps in 63 years, the odds for one in 2025 may seem slim – only one UDP candidate needs to win. And a week in politics is a long time. But if there is any year when one is not too farfetched, it is 2025. Even if not in 2025, a clean sweep is possible sometime – whether it is 31 blue or 31 red. So, what happens when one does?
Clean Sweeps & the Constitution
The current Belize Constitution envisions some aspects of a scenario where no member in the House of Representatives opposes the government. With regard to the Leader of the Opposition (LOO), the Constitution (Section 47.1) states: “There shall (except at times when there are no members of the House of Representatives who do not support the Government) be a Leader of the Opposition who shall be appointed by the Governor-General.”
Importantly, Section 47.6 provides that, in such situation, those provisions that require consultation with, or concurrence from the LOO “shall have effect as if there were no such requirement.” This ‘no requirement’ clause applies to appointments to constitutionally enshrined guardian or oversight bodies and posts. Under the current Constitution these bodies and posts are:
- Belize Advisory Council
- Election and Boundaries Commission
- Public Services Commission
- Security Services Commission
- Director of Public Prosecutions
- Chief Justice and other High Court Justices
- Justices of Appeal
However, there is one exception to the ‘no requirement’ clause in relation to the three senators reserved to be appointed to the Senate by the LOO (Section 47.6). If 14 days after the Governor-General (GG) has requested advice on all 13 appointments to the Senate, and some appointments are not named, then the power of appointment is constitutionally transferred to the GG herself. In this regard, the GG must seek the advice of the Belize Advisory Council (BAC) (Section 61.4 & 5).
Clean Sweeps & Standing Orders
Before exploring the possible implications of the constitutional side of all this, let’s take a quick look at the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. The Standing Orders, which regulate the proceedings of the House, mention the term ‘Leader of the Opposition’ only once – in a context of where the Prime Minister and LOO may reach agreements on transaction of business in the House (Section 92). That would become moot.
In the case of Standing Committees and Select Committees of the House, the Standing Orders aim to reflect the balance in the House, between members who support the government and those who do not. In fact, the Standing Orders mandate that these Committees “have at least two members who do not support the Government (unless there are no members, or insufficient members, of the House of Representatives who do not support the Government).” (Sections 73 and 77). The latter clause clarifies that the Standing Orders do envision a clean sweep scenario.
Additionally, Section 75.2 states that “The Chairman of the Joint Public Accounts Committee [JPAC] shall be chosen from among the members who do not support the Government (except at times when there is no such member).” In short, in the context of a clean sweep, the Standing Orders allow for the House to continue its legislative business without the need for members who do not support the government.
Threats to Democracy?
So back to that timely question: are clean political party sweeps threats to democracy that could result in dictatorships? Knowing my Dad, I am certain he meant ‘democracy’ in a broader sense than just electoral democracy – but also how it is practiced. And he meant ‘dictatorship’ in the conventional sense as rule by one person (a dictator) or small group over a long period.
If you have been reading my TIME COME blogs regularly, you will know that I contend that aspects of our democracy are already under threat from several fronts. I am also among those political observers who have long argued that, de facto, Belize is a ‘prime ministerial dictatorship’. I will not repeat the arguments here. (See my piece titled ‘Total Fusion: The Perilous Rise of the Execu-lature’). Clearly, using ‘dictatorship’ in this context is more to hammer home the point that in small parliamentary systems like Belize’s, the winners-take-all and prime ministers are all powerful.
I have little doubt that, in a clean sweep, the winners would be tempted to take all and then some. Given Belize’s history of visceral winner-take-all politics, the impulse to take full advantage of near total power would be high, maybe even irresistible. How much more authoritarian the exercise of power and authority could become would depend on several variables.
If a clean sweep election is free and fair and, more so if given the stamp of approval by external election observers, it is, in principle, the result of electoral democracy – the will of the people. While the extent of ‘free and fair’ can be debated (for example, in the context of vote-buying), there is nothing inherently dictatorial about a clean sweep. It is what could happen after the election that matters.
In Lieu of a LOO?
While conceding that the legislative powers of the official Opposition in the National Assembly have been constitutionally negligible since independence, a clean sweep would make them non-existent. In lieu of a LOO and opposition members in the House, the 31 winners would themselves debate the same Bills they already approved in Cabinet, and would pass them unopposed. Why even have House debates in this scenario? When it comes to constitutional amendments, the requirement for a two-thirds or three-fourths majority will be guaranteed. Constitutional amendments could come fast and furious.
What about the Senate? If the GG gets advice from the BAC (which has a built-in government majority) to appoint three supporters of the governing party then the ‘government’ would have nine senate seats. In this scenario, the four social partners would be unable to return Bills to the House without the support of some government senators. And if the government really wanted to amend the section of the Constitution on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, it could ‘ensure’ that the Senate approves.
Additionally, if no persons who identify with a party opposing the government are appointed to the Senate by the GG, there will be no opposition debate on Bills and no opposition members to vote on critical matters related to the independent powers of the Senate. These powers include, but are not limited to, the ratification of treaties, approving the establishment of foreign military bases and approving the appointments of the Contractor-General, the Ombudsman, members of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) and the Integrity Commission (Section 61A.2).
Zero Legislative Oversight
Section 45 of the Constitution requires that the government “be collectively responsible to the National Assembly.” With a clean sweep, the fusion of executive and legislative power will be total – not by deliberate decision but out of necessity. Oversight by the legislature would become an even bigger farce. Recall too, that it is the House that appoints the key accountability post of the Auditor General.
The existing lack of oversight by the House on the Executive would be compounded by the total absence of the opposition members in House Committees and absence of opposition nominees for the constitutional enshrined oversight bodies and posts (listed above). Does this mean that in those situations when a LOO needs to be consulted, then the Prime Minister needs to consult no one? And when a LOO’s concurrence is needed, the PM advises the GG alone? Yes, and yes. The PM is king.
Think, for example, of the Election and Boundaries Commission (EBC), which has that all important role of ensuring free and fair elections – and is, itself, in need of reform. Constitutionally, the Prime Minister appoints two, plus the chairperson, and the LOO appoints two members. In short, there could be a situation where all EBC members come from one party. Now, that would be alarming and can erode faith in the election machinery. I could go on with other examples, but you get the point.
No Power of Voice
Additionally, the intangible power of ‘voice’ on the public pulpit for opposing members would be non-existent. In parliamentary systems like Belize’s, the voices of the opposition are part of holding the government to account: a sort of verbal check and balance to monitor and challenge bills, amendments and resolutions. Because the proceedings of the National Assembly are publicly broadcast, this official forum to voice opposition concerns, and to argue why the opposition is an alternate party for the next election, all disappears.
With a clean sweep, opposing party voices can only come from outside the National Assembly – including those voices of shadow cabinet ministers. This lack of voice, of course, would extend to Standing Committees and Select Committees of the House and the Senate – which could have no members not supporting the government. And the JPAC could not be chaired by the ‘voice’ of an opposition representative.
Lessons from the Region
Professor Hamid Ghany informs that post-independence clean sweeps have been on an upward trend in the Caribbean region: Trinidad & Tobago (1971), Jamaica (1983), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (1989), Grenada (1999, 2013 and 2022), and Barbados (2018 and 2022).
Ghany points out that in Jamaica, the Constitution gives the prime minister the power to advise on opposition senatorial appointments if there is no LOO. In 1983, Prime Minister Edward Seaga magnanimously appointed eight opposition Senators. In the case of a 31-0 PUP sweep in Belize in 2025, it is the GG, in absence of a LOO, who would appoint three senators on advice of the BAC. If Prime Minister Briceño so wanted, it is possible for him to ‘arrange’ for three members of the swept opposition to be appointed.
In the case of the Republic of Barbados, after the 2018 clean sweep (30-0) by Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s Barbados Labour Party (BLP), a member of the BLP, citing democracy concerns, identified himself as an independent and crossed the floor. He was then appointed as LOO and later formed his own political party. After the BLP swept again in 2022, a BLP back bencher crossed the floor in early 2024 to become the LOO. This crossing of the floor scenario has also played out in Grenada once.
However, this option would not apply in Belize. This is because the anti-defection ‘clause’ in the Constitution forces members of the House who resign from their political party or cross the floor to cease to be members of the House (Section 59A). While there would be no opposition members to cross the floor or be constructively resigned, there is still a floor to cross for one or more of the 31 representatives supporting the government. But why would anyone do this if the result is being kicked out of the House and triggering a by-election? There is also the farfetched scenario that the Prime Minister could kick out one of his own representatives if he/she opposes key government bills.
Overall, Caribbean political analysts generally view clean sweeps as negative for democracy and good governance. They result in one-party rule in political systems that already give great power to the winning parties and especially to prime ministers. Legislatively, the government gets anything it wants, and the oversight functions of parliament and oversight bodies become even more toothless. In the cases of Grenada and Barbados there is evidence that once a political party has been clean swept, its time of re-building in electoral wilderness can be long and lonely.
The Caribbean experience also indicates that how a government that has no opposition wields its total power depends not only on differing constitutional provisions, but also on the leadership of prime ministers – for example, the extent of their benevolence in appointing opposition figures to the Senate and on oversight bodies even when they do not constitutionally have to. The good news in the Caribbean, so far, is that electoral clean sweeps have not yet led to full-fledged dictatorships – especially in terms of suspending elections or rights.
Electoral Reform a Must
We have seen that, although the Belize Constitution envisions the possibility of a clean sweep, it does not provide clear guidance for all the repercussions of not having an opposition or LOO. So, what reforms should be considered to mitigate against the threats to democracy and temptations for more authoritarianism?
In terms of mitigating abuse of the total governmental powers of clean sweeps, Belize could consider what Grenada attempted but failed at in 2016. That is to amend the Constitution to give the GG the power to appoint a LOO from the losing party or from outside parliament. That attempt failed as part of a package of constitutional amendments put to referendum. This has also been proposed in Barbados. This option is not that much different from what the British Governor did in Belize in 1961 in appointing Goldson after the PUP’s clean sweep.
Of political historical interest in Belize, is that this issue of opposition appointments in clean sweep scenarios was discussed in the making of the 1963 Constitution. In a letter (dated 21 June 1963) to Whitehall, just before the London constitutional conference, the legal/political advisor in the Governor’s Office, informed of disquiet in the National Independence Party (NIP) about the PUP repeating its 1961 winning of 100% of the House seats. The NIP floated a proposal of elections based on proportional representation to ensure opposition seats. This NIP idea did not fly with the British nor the PUP, but the advisor did propose that consideration be given to:
“…Inserting a suitable provision in the next Constitution which would ensure that there is a minimum opposition representation in the elected House. This might be done by providing that there must be at least three opposition members in the elected House and if less than three opposition candidates won seats, those candidates who secured the greatest number of votes, up to a total of three, should automatically be appointed, the number of [House] seats being automatically increased.”
Although this proposal got nowhere then, it does have elements for consideration by those who want to preserve and improve the unfair first-past-the-post electoral system.
A Much Better Solution
However, there is a better solution: reform the electoral system itself to prevent clean sweeps. This could be in the form of an alternative electoral system, for example, one based totally on a suitable system of proportional representation, or one based on a mixed system. Professor Hamid Ghany’s proposes the latter:
“One of the electoral reforms that ought to be considered, in a general sense, to guard against these growing cases of clean sweeps should be the introduction of mixed systems of election that retain the first-past-the-post system but include a system of proportional representation for several seats to be filled in legislatures.”
In this way, other parties that win, say 40% of the popular vote, but win no constituencies would still get seats in the House – and there will always be an Opposition.
In Belize, Dr. Harold Young has also argued for considerations of alternative electoral systems than first-past-the-post. Any such reforms should ideally be part of a wider comprehensive package of constitutional reforms to have more impact on the quality of democracy. I hope that the People’s Constitution Commission (PCC) is considering such reforms related to dealing with or preventing clean sweeps – although these would not have effect for the 2025 election.
Headaches for the PM?
Ironically, even as it would give him historical bragging rights and even more power, Prime Minister Briceño himself may not wish for a total clean sweep in 2025. With a 26 to 5 super majority win in the House in 2020, he eventually appointed all 26 PUP representatives to be ministers or minsters of state. It’s part of the evolving rewards system were everyone ‘runs’ primarily for ‘minister’ and not for making laws and policies nor for overseeing the Executive.
With five more elected PUP representatives all wanting a ministerial appointment, the PM’s head will be hot. Thirty-one ministers and minsters of state? Scary, but unlikely. Some PUP MPs would not be pleased. But may there be a more credible back bench? And, instead of addressing empty opposition chairs, would the PM not miss tangling in verbal debate with a LOO Hon. Shyne Barrow or a LOO Hon. Tracy Taegar-Panton? Might he decide to appoint losing members of other parties to some or all the positions reserved for a LOO?
We can escape all this unnecessary messiness and threats to democracy caused by electoral clean sweeps by moving to a political system with an electoral process that simply prevents them. If anything, this discussion highlights the existing problems with Belize’s authoritarian style of democracy that persist even without clean sweeps. Time long come for revolutionary reform. Wishing all a 2025 full of radical hope.