There has been a lot of talk recently about the role of independent senators and how they should or should not have voted in the recent debate on the Bill proposing amendments to the Procurement Act. If you are a UNC supporter you would be very angry over the seeming abdication by all but one of the Independents of their perceived responsibility and even more annoyed over the vote by Dr. Remy in support of the Government's Bill. If you are a PNM supporter you are very happy with the result and are smirking happily while accusing the UNC side of sour grapes.
With respect, both sides are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Senate is supposed to work. So let's start from the beginning. There are 31 Senators. The Government has 16 senators, one of whom is always the President of the Senate, i.e., the presiding officer. He/she has a casting vote IF there is a tie. Convention dictates that the Presiding Officer must ALWAYS vote to maintain the status quo. So, if the votes are tied at 15 for and 15 against, and the status quo is that there must be no change to whatever is being proposed, then the proposal fails. And as almost all the proposals for change come from the Government this tie would mean that whatever was being proposed fails ... the Government loses.
I should have also pointed out that there are 6 Opposition Senators and 9 Independents. All the Senators are appointed by the President of the Republic. The Government Senators are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Opposition Senators are appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. The Independents are appointed by the President on whomsoever he/she may so desire. These last are usually chosen from the general population and are usually persons who are recognized as being leaders of or in their particular fields of expertise, e.g. medicine, religion, law, etc. (As an aside, I saw a rather derogatory comment about Senator Paul Richards where he was referred to as a mere "DJ". This was a most unfair and unwarranted comment. I have known Senator Richards for many years as as a most competent, knowledgeable and balanced news journalist. Frankly, he deserves to be in the Senate and has made some excellent contributions in the past as an Independent Senator.)
But I digress. The Independents are not in the Senate to prevent or obstruct the Government of the day from doing what it wants, but are there to ensure that laws are not passed that would, for example, give the Government dictatorial powers or are so absolutely stupid that no sane person could support it. (for example again, I would expect the Independents to vote against a law that said that all men must wear green pants at all times.) I have known many Independent Senators who have not particularly liked or agreed with a particular proposal of the particular Government, but have voted for it (whatever "it" was) because they understood that their fundamental role was as a sort of watchdog and not to get involved in the politics of a particular situation.
When an Independent Senator abstains from voting that is a serious warning to the Government of the day. What the Independent is saying in effect is 'I'm not going to block you, but you should know that I disapprove of what you are doing'. A sensible Government will pay close attention to this. An astute Opposition will also pay attention and will look for ways in the future to try and persuade the Independent who abstained not to do so next time, but to vote against the next proposal.
Although I did not agree with Senator Remy's vote on the Procurement Bill, frankly I have seen no evidence whatsoever that she is a "closet PNM" (or whatever other derogatory epithet has been hurled against her.) Clearly, in voting for the Bill she must have felt that she was doing exactly what she had been put in the Senate to do, and she was acting in accordance with that belief. I think that at the very least she should have abstained as did her other colleagues, but once she acted honourably and honestly (and I believe that she did) then whether I agree with her vote or not is immaterial. The most that we can ask of anyone is that he/she acts honourably and honestly.
For the record, I think that the Bill should have been defeated, but I must say that the Opposition Senators have not been reported as dealing with the problems that the Bill will create, but appeared to have concentrated more on the politics. And the reported comments of Senator Jerlean John made after the vote, if accurate, are as unnecessary as they are unfortunate. That the Opposition Senators were unable to persuade the Independents to vote against the Bill speaks more to their failure than anything else.
Perhaps the Opposition Senators should take a course on the role and function of the Senate. The Upper House is supposed to be a place where more reasoned debate takes place and the interests of the country take precedence over the more narrow partisan ones which tend to dominate the national debate. But that is why we have an Independent Bench, and whether you like them or not, most of them do a good job. Certainly, in my lifetime I have only known one individual who was clearly not independent and who always voted for whatever the Government of the day wanted. Fortunately, he is no longer there and the President who appointed him is also long gone. But, to be fair, so far the present crop of Independents is doing a good job. Would that we could say the same for the remaining 22 Senators on both sides of the aisle!
P.S. Even if all 9 Independent Senators had abstained the Bill would still have passed. For the Bill to have failed, all 9 Independent Senators would have had to have voted against it.
