BELIZE: SENATE REFERENDUM ADDS CONFUSION TO CAMPAIGN

UNCLAS BELMOPAN 000057

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

FOR WHA/CEN - R. BEAL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV BH
SUBJECT: BELIZE: SENATE REFERENDUM ADDS CONFUSION TO CAMPAIGN

REF: BELMOPAN 08


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: In addition to the national election on February
7, Belizeans will be asked to vote on whether they favor an elected
Senate to replace the current appointed body. The government added
the referendum to the general election ballot with no warning, in
effect allowing only the 30-day election campaign period for the
public to consider a significant constitutional change. While the
concept of an elected Senate certainly has some merit, the way the
referendum was handled smacks of political opportunism and perhaps
desperation. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) The government's plan to hold a referendum on creating an
elected Senate at the same time as the February 7 national election
has added an element of confusion to the race. Many Belizeans
advocate reform of the current system of appointing the largely
ceremonial Senate and support giving the body more independence from
the House. People seem confused, however, by the concept of a
referendum, which is rare in Belize, as well as by the timing of
this particular referendum. Among those who have given some thought
to the issue, many feel that the short 30-day campaign period is
hardly enough time to debate a significant constitutional reform.
Others see this simply as a "red herring" put forth by the ruling
PUP to divert attention from their governance record. The
referendum is a simple "yes" or "no" vote on the narrow question
with no details. Particulars of what the "elected" Senate would be
and do would be finalized later.


3. (U) Proponents of the change include former People's United
Party (PUP) Senator and former Foreign Minister Eamon Courtenay as
well as Godwin Hulse, who currently represents the business
community in the Senate. Both are well-respected voices and they
argue that the current system has no way to enforce government
accountability. House committees such as Public Accounts meet
rarely and have no power to compel the government to produce
documents or send anyone to testify. As a result the committees,
although chaired by opposition members, are toothless when it comes
to oversight. Courtenay and Hulse -- while they differ on the
specifics of how an elected Senate would be structured -- argue that
the system as it exists is broken and that only an elected Senate
could stand up to the government and provide adequate oversight.



4. (U) The opposition United Democratic Party (UDP)'s response to
the referendum has essentially been to label it a political trick
and urge UDP voters to boycott the Senate vote. The UDP's platform
calls for reform of the Senate to change its composition so that
opposition and civil society appointments would constitute a
majority. Although the UDP has not explicitly ruled out an elected
Senate, its opposition to a PUP proposal seems to be as much a
knee-jerk reaction as anything else. The PUP, meanwhile, is running
political ads linking itself to the elected Senate: "If you want an
elected Senate, vote PUP."


5. (U) Response across Belizean society to Senate reform has been
mixed. At a recent forum at the University of Belize the young and
mostly anti-PUP crowd seemed to come away from the discussion at
least willing to give the idea of electing the Senate fair
consideration. The President of the Chamber of Commerce told us
that his membership is split evenly on the issue. He personally
opposes it, he told us, because another elected body would mean even
more politicians coming to the business community with their hands
out for campaign contributions. (NOTE: Belize has no campaign
finance laws. END NOTE.)


6. (SBU) COMMENT: There are pros and cons to grafting an elected,
if not equal, Senate onto the existing Westminster model in Belize.
Other countries with similar models have debated the issue for
decades; some Caribbean nations have sought to beef up the
Parliamentary committee system as a check on executive power. In
all cases the public has needed time to consider reforms. For the
government here to throw the issue without advance warning into a
hotly-contested national election campaign and ask for a "yes or no"
response in 30 days smacks of short-term political opportunism --
perhaps even desperation -- rather than sober second thought. END
COMMENT.

DIETER