The Pros And Cons Of Political Reform Commissions

Decent Essays
In early December 1999, the new PUP government announced that it was establishing a broad-based “Political Reform Commission” to review Belize's system of governance and develop proposals for reform. On January 13, 1999, Prime Minister, the Honorable Said Musa officially launched the Commission in Belize City. Some of the things the Reform Commission was mandated for are: to review the system of governance and to make recommendations for its improvement, whether by amendments to the Constitution or laws or otherwise, with a view to achieving greater democracy. Also, to take account of all the ideas and proposals made over the past few years by different organizations. Some members of the Reform Commission are: Senator Eamon Courtenay, People's…show more content…
On the other hand, the Executive Presidential Model: has a president who is elected by the popular vote and who is the Head of State and head of the executive, there is provision for an elected unicameral or bicameral legislature which has significant oversight over the Executive branch, and separation of powers and checks and balances are key fundamental principles. The commission recommends that the system of national government in Belize continue to be based on the parliamentary executive model. Some of the areas that they urge to be addressed are: enhancing opportunities for people's participation in the legislative process, ensuring that elected officials and public officers who violate procedures and laws are held accountable, ensuring that Belizeans become more educated about their rights and about their political system and…show more content…
Therefore, I disagree with the commission’s recommendation. I believe that Belize should change from Parliamentary Executive to Executive Presidential. In such case, having the Parliamentary Executive system has quite a few disadvantages. Some of them are: quick decision-making, the system has not effectively prevented the increase of official waste and corruption, and the House and even more so the Senate serve largely as rubber stamps for Cabinet decisions. If we continue to use this system, the people will not be able to be a part of the decision making because this system is of a dictatorship. It means that even if we disagree with something, it’s not us who have the final say. Also, it didn’t decrease waste and corruption but I believe instead it has increased. Moreover, saying that the House and Senate serves largely as a rubber stamp for Cabinet decisions means that the House and the Senate are approving matters or making decisions without real power. The House Senate aren’t very important to what they
Get Access