Should politicians be removed for immoral behaviour?
Consultations emerging from the recently published Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) report show that residents want to see politicians removed from office for immoral behaviour, amidst fears that corruption in the territory is growing increasingly worse.
Although the Commission did not implement the proposal, numerous suggestions were presented for the creation of recall provisions. These provisions would allow for the removal of elected officials from their positions before their term ends.
The report stated that comments received during the public consultation process indicate that there is a strong desire amongst the residents for additional mechanisms for accountability for elected officials to be put in place.
This comes amid growing mistrust by residents of the government and a belief that corruption is increasing and that it will not get better in the future.
According to the report, the proposals were made in response to the question of ‘how executive ministerial government can be held to account in the House of Assembly, and how checks and balances and mechanisms for accountability may be employed to militate against abuse of power’.
The report revealed that in jurisdictions that do permit recalls, there are a wide variety of recall mechanisms used, including some that allow citizens to initiate a recall petition for any reason. The threshold of votes required to initiate a recall also varies widely.
It was further noted that in some cases, a recall cannot be initiated until a certain time after the last ordinary election.
Ultimately, the Commission put forward several recommendations to introduce a recall mechanism for Members of the House of Assembly (HoA), suggesting legislative changes such as an amendment to section 67(3) of the Constitution to incorporate recall as a reason for vacating a seat.
The proposed recall legislation would define specific grounds for initiating a recall, similar to the UK’s model, and include serious violations of the Code of Conduct outlined in the Integrity in Public Life Act 2021.
It would also limit the recall right to voters from the representative’s constituency, setting a high signature threshold to prevent frequent use of recalls and establishing a ‘safe harbour period’ after officials take office to allow them time to fulfil their electoral promises.
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
It should be insitituted and legislators should be removed from office on evidence only:
A) sexual harassment
B) Rape or any criminal offense
C) undue influence and pressure on individuals under their ministerial post to be involved in dishonest acts
D) Use their authority and influence to discriminate in job opportunities
E) Engage in Any unlawful acts
F) Use gifts to secure votes
The will of the people must not be disregarded and dismissed.
Problem with that list is that it leaves very few qualified candidates.
And victimizing people who do not vote for them or speak out against wrongs that are being done.
The immoral behaviour and corruption of politicians in the BVI, as in other small island states, is facilitated by high ranking civil servants and the legal and financial professions.
It is the prerogative of favoured families that have a hand in them all.
DUN RETYRE
Once properly investigated and proven they should be relief of their duty..
Of course they should.
I agree in principle that politicians and even civil servants should be removed from office/positions if they have been proven to have engaged in certain behaviors such as criminal activity, quid pro quo schemes, unethical acts, and drug running, among others.
However, “immoral acts” is a broad term and lends itself to disagreement and abuse as to what is being considered to be immoral and what is not.
Thus, while I agree in principle that politicians should be subjected to some recall provision based on certain conduct, let’s see what are being considered as “immoral acts” before we proceed here.
For example, is it immoral if a politician is accused of having sexual relations with someone else spouse? If so, should they be thrown out of the House of Assembly just based on the accusation? Will they be allowed due process before such actions are taken.
On the surface that looks bad, but what if the spouse involved has been separated from their spouse for years and have not lived under the same roof with them during those years. Does this still constitutes immorality and grounds for recall?
Seems to me that unethical and illegal acts are better grounds to initiate removal of a House Member rather than some accusation of immorality which can vary from person to person and the circumstances.
So, yes. Accountability and transparency is a good thing for those holding public office. However, before we start kicking people out of the House of Assembly, lets’ be certain that the grounds for such expulsions is universally shared, and not on some subjective and broad definition of immorality.
The BVI is a small place. Nothing is kept secret in this place. Somebody always knows something and word on the streets spread like wild fire.
Given that reality, perhaps voters should have the final say when it comes to questionable behavior of politicians that is not criminal in nature.
Learn it. Use it.
The word……What is your Moot point.
There certainly needs to be a recall mechanism. But this have to be carefully thought out and based on legal reasons only such as Criminal conviction, proven acts of corruptions or missing council meetins for three consecitive meetings without plausable reasons or permission. To just say immoral behavior is pointless. My idea of immorality may be completely different to another.
Immoral behavior and corrupt politicians do not only exist in small island communities, but in all countries world wide, and are facilitated by the centuries old systems.
This even more so in developed countries such as EU, UK, US and others.
Te notion that such occurs only in small island states is a false and unethical accusation of a people while paintng them in a negative light.
We should be more thughtful in our comments. and hideour prejudices accordingly.
Why would that even be a question?
No accountability, no audits, consultations given to friends and family. COI not addressed, politicians and financial secretaries still not charged – the BVI’s corruption is rife.
I dont think you can stand for election if convicted or murder, anything else is ok. Surely there has to be an expansion pf the excluded category?
As long as Gods going to forgive us all why worry about the electorate!