This drama has prompted some research on the whole matter of the original purpose of a senate in the scheme of governance and that of the Assembly.
The Roman Senate, according to the Roman authorities, ascribed the origin of the Senate to Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, who chose 100 of the best of his subjects to form an advisory council. The appointment of senators depended entirely upon the king, who possibly might change his advisors during his reign. The powers of the Senate in these early times (600-500 B.C.) were very indefinite.
With the abolition of monarchy, around 501 B.C. the Senate became the advisory council to the consuls, replacements of the leaders (praetors) and judges (indices), the two new officials who had replaced the king. From the very earliest times consulship was the highest honour that the Roman Empire had to bestow on its people, a position held for one year only. The Senate on the other hand was a permanent body, and their powers grew until curbed by Emperor Augustus in the late first century B.C., when it received judicial functions with the power to try cases of extortion in senatorial provinces.
Down through the centuries systems of governance evolved as circumstances dictated, sometimes peacefully but more often through the pressure and perseverance of the people. In some cases, systems of governance evolved by historical accidents rather than through conscious design. This was the case of bicameralism in Britain, which eventually spread throughout the world.
At first, representatives from the three social orders or estates in Great Britain – barons, clergy and commons – met as a single body at he summons of the king, primarily to hear his requests for revenue. Later the commoners insisted upon the right of withdrawing to a separate meeting place to concur before joining the other two estates in general meetings. With the passage of time, the greater barons and the high-ranking clergy joined with each other to form the Hose of Lords, while the lesser nobility or the commoners evolved into the House of Commons. Eventually the two groups ceased to meet in joint assembly (except for some ceremonial occasion), thus creating the bicameral system.
It should be noted however, that bicameralism in The Bahamas, as it is in Britain, is so only in name since the Senate, like the House of Lords, has only a delaying veto effect on legislation which is passed by the lower House of Assembly (Bahamas) and the House of Commons (Britain). The present Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Fred Mitchell made a stir while an opposition Senator to challenge this status quo, but it still remains.
The United States system of governance on the other hand is more truly bicameral since a Bill must pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives in identical terms before it can become law. Furthermore senators in the American bicameral system are elected by and accountable to the people of their electoral districts.
The Senator who was appointed by the Prime Minister, and now embroiled in charges of and rebuttals to corruption, has submitted his resignation to the person who appointed him, which seems reasonable and logical. It might appear logical and reasonable for the Prime Minister to rebut or answer publicly the reasons for such a resignation since they were made public, but how wise was it to do so in such expansive discourse? Might it not have been wiser to regretfully accept the resignation with the assurance that the matter of corruption charges would be turned over to the police for full investigation? That’s what was done in a sister Caribbean state a few years ago when a Cabinet figure and some public officers were accused of plotting a scheme to defraud a pension and medical plan. The prime minister turned the matter over to the police and promised full support in the investigation. That was pursuit of transparency and accountability in action, and the kind of action that promotes integrity in government.
The Hubert Ingraham-led government coined the phrase “Government in the Sunshine,” and thus started a new culture. It is a noble thought that could only make our society better if diligently pursued in action as stated in words. Alas, it seems as elusive as a butterfly. Maybe when we adopt a true bicameral system of government that is accountable to the people through checks and balances, more sunshine will indeed be seen in government.
Vincent L. Ferguson, The Bahama Journal
