THE Senate is a creation of our Independence Constitution. Prior to 1962, that body was known as the Legislative Council, or LegCo. The Senate is regarded as the Upper House, a take-off of the House of Lords in the British Parliament. As the Upper House, its duty is to consider, review, and advise on legislation prepared by the Lower House, or the House of Representatives, which is modelled off the House of Commons in Britain.

Why Commons? Because it represents the ordinary man, with members selected not by birth or by aristocratic ranking, but by the common vote afforded to the people who mandate their representatives to perform the business of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The elected representatives propose laws and acts that are designed to turn the wheels of agriculture and industry, drive the economy, preserve law and order, and provide good governance to secure the sustainability, integrity and productivity of the nation.

But before passage or adaptation of any such law, the people of the Lower House, or the House of Representatives, are required to refer these matters to the Upper House, the Senate, for their consideration and assent.

Note the separation of powers, and why. In earlier days, the House of Lords was supposed to be the cream of the crop — the ladies and gentlemen born into the lap of luxury, estate, Eton and Harrow, expected to be better educated and more knowledgeable than the commoners, and with direct access to their royal majesties.

The Lower House, it was said, may make their laws, but it is the Upper House who know what’s good for them and the country, can keep them from getting out of hand, preserve the image of Brittanie, and protect their majesties.

So British and Commonwealth democracy, in all its glory and with all its achievements, has always had that implicit touch of constraint and control vested in an Upper House that is constituted to ensure that things do not get out of hand.

In Jamaica today our senators have no right of inheritance or legacy to occupy seats in that honourable place. According to our constitution, senators are nominated by Government and Opposition to carry out their functions of vetting legislation introduced first of all in Cabinet and debated and passed by the Lower House.

Now the Senate was never meant to rubber-stamp legislation sent to it by the Lower House. The intent of the Constitution is that senators should be independent persons who can evaluate, assess, recommend, and provide a check and balance so that laws are passed on merit and not on a partisan basis.

That is why, symbolically, it is called the Upper House, and if it fails to live up to its mandate, we may as well do without it, as in practice it has become a mere extension of the Lower House.

Unfortunately, it has taken the recent upset and confusion over Senate appointments to make us sit up and think again about the real purpose and intent of having a Senate.

We once had a Senate with a significant number of independent senators. Faced with a boycott of the 1983 General Election by the PNP, the country ended up with a one-party government. Prime Minister Edward Seaga had the option of selecting a total JLP Senate, or creating an Opposition in the House, using the seats forfeited by the PNP to appoint an independent side. He chose to invite persons with an independent mind or with a PNP background to accept appointments from the Governor General to sit on the Opposition benches in the Senate.

For the record, the list included Dr Lloyd Barnett, QC; Emile George, QC; Courtney Fletcher, JAS president; John Issa, tourism; Errol Miller, educator; Hazel Monteith, social worker; Charles Sinclair, former mayor of Montego Bay; and Keith Worrell, economist.

This Senate was later to be acclaimed publicly and in press editorials as one of the best ever in post-independent Jamaica. In other words, it can work. Jamaica is tired of seeing candidates who have lost at the polls, or party diehards, or retired Cabinet ministers turning up in the Senate to continue to support and maintain the party line. Give us a break!

A brief look at Jamaica’s political history provides an interesting background to the concept and creation of the 1962 Constitution and the format of the Senate.

Following the 1865 rebellion, which was centred on Morant Bay, the British decided to impose a stricter form of government on the colony where absolute power in matters of legislation resided in the crown, represented by the governor.

This system of government known as Crown Colony government lasted until 1884 when a change in the Constitution allowed for a semi-representative government, partly elected and partly nominated. At the general election in May 1884 nine representatives were elected. The representatives came from the upper classes, as candidates had to be property owners and voting was the prerogative of those with an income far beyond the reach of the common man.

To this group, the governor added six nominated officials of his own liking and status. But he also had in reserve four other officials whom he could utilise as he saw fit. And he had the power of veto. So if the elected representatives voted unanimously on an issue, the governor could overrule them simply by deploying “the official majority”, that is by simply increasing the number of ex-officio nominated members to 10. Anybody see this kind of sleight of hand being repeated anywhere in the context of today’s parliamentary power struggles?

But it was not all smooth sailing for the governor and the upper class ruling party as, during this period 1884 to 1944, there were below surface changes at work led first of all by Dr Henry Love, a black man from The Bahamas who made Jamaica his home. He consistently and aggressively represented the cause of the poor and illiterate people, who had neither vote nor representation. Dr Love is one of those unsung heroes who fought unrelentingly to get more black people to vote and even to be enrolled as candidates. He eventually landed a seat in the Council in 1906, setting the pace for Marcus Garvey who credited Love for “greatly pioneering and advancing the cause of adult suffrage”, and another legislator, J A G Smith, himself an elected member who stood up for the people against the whims and fancies of the ruling elite.

These men raised the hopes and aspirations of the people for a fairer and more equitable system of government. That hoped-for change came with the introduction of adult suffrage and a new constitution in 1944 that established two chambers: a House of Representatives (elected) and a Legislative Council (nominated). It also established an executive committee of the governor and five officials (nominated), and five elected members who were our first ministers.

In 1953 the constitution was again amended to appoint a chief minister (Alexander Bustamante) and adding seven ministers from the House of Representatives. The elected members now had the majority over the nominated members. November 1957 saw a new constitution with the executive council finally replaced by a Cabinet, and the Governor rapidly becoming a figurehead.

The 1962 Independence Constitution was largely based on what already existed, with the distinguishing feature of an official position of the office of a Leader of the Opposition, and prescribing a Senate to replace the Legislative Council.

The Legislative Councils, forerunner to the Independence Senate, made a valuable contribution to parliamentary affairs as it relied on a strong core of independent persons appointed based on their training and experience.

Edward Seaga, who was the youngest member of the Legislative Council, tells the story of his appointment by Bustamante in 1959. The JLP had lost the general elections on July 29 that year, and Seaga, who had played a minor role on the outskirts of the campaign, went to visit Busta at his Tucker Avenue home the Saturday after the election.

“Only Miss Gladys Longbridge, Bustamante’s private secretary was on the verandah that morning”, he writes in his autobiography, “When Sir Alexander teasingly said to her, ‘Miss Longbridge, do you see anyone here that I have appointed to the Legislative Council?’ She answered promptly with a sly smile, ‘Yes Chief, Eddie.’ Busta then turned to me and said, ‘Son, I have appointed you to the Legislative Council’.”

Seaga went on to carve out a legendary role with his contribution to both houses of Parliament. It was, of course, in the Legislative Council that he made his famous ‘haves and have-nots’ speech on April 21, 1961 that shook up the collective conscience of the nation.

Men like Dr Love, Smith, George William Gordon, fought in their various councils against the prejudices and biases that kept their fellow Jamaicans subjugated to the whims and fancies of the rich and priveleged. Take a look at the Legislative Council of 1957, and measure if you can the calibre of men and women who sat in those seats. People like the Rt Revd Percival Gibson, Douglas Judah, Edith Clarke, Phillip Sherlock, Rudolph Burke, Brian Nation, Douglas Fletcher. They were untouched by political partisanship and served their country well.

So let us not take our Senate appointments lightly. There is a rich tradition of service and integrity within that Chamber. Those pioneers served their councils with honour and have left their footsteps on the sands of time. Let us use the opportunities and the challenges being presented today to reinvent the Senate and convert it into a forum of independent minds that can bolster accountability and transparency in government, will value objectivity, and operate in a non-partisan fashion to better serve this country .

Lance Neita is a communications and public relations consultant. Comments to the Observer or to lanceneita@hotmail.com