Article 21 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) reads: “(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country; (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

The language seems self-explanatory, but it is still worth looking closer at how we should interpret those words, especially as it pertains to the conceptualization of the will of the people. In answering this question (among others), the United Nations Human Rights Office of The High Commissioner (OHCHR) wrote:

“Fresh in the minds of the UDHR drafters was the election of Adolf Hitler through democratic processes, and his subsequent rejection of the very same processes as a foundation for the democratic state. … Such a leader would command total obedience from those under him, and he was above, and therefore could totally disregard, the rule of law. In this respect, like so many others, the UDHR can be seen as a key part of the world’s attempt to inoculate itself against any future would-be dictators” (full statement published in this issue of The Reporter).

The OHCHR would go on to write:

“Populism, driven by parties from the political extremes, is once again pushing for power VIA EXISTING DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES – its promoters, described by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as ‘charismatic individuals or fake prophets promising simplistic solutions to people’s grievances through radical policies that DISMISS INSTITUTIONS and laws as either irrelevant or INCONVENIENT.’”

Finally, as shown in the image excerpt below, the OHCHR goes on to pen these words:

“A number of key rights contained elsewhere in the UDHR are among the first casualties when democracy withers. … The rule of law Articles (6-11) soon follow – undermined by redrawn legislation and AMENDMENTS to CONSTITUTIONS designed to STRENGTHEN the leadership’s HOLD ON POWER.”

Coloring within vs. outside the lines

As can be gleaned from the OHCHR’s quotes above, there was and continue to be a conspicuous and an inherent assumption and expectation that the foundation of the “Will of the People” dwells within a type of “universal” acceptance that governments must operate within the parameters and CONFINES of those UDHR-expressed rights. Furthermore, it must be underscored that those same rights are to be upheld by essential institutions and the Rule of Law. Simply put, all governments—as far as the UDHR and its progenies are concerned—must “color within the line.” Those “lines”, therefore, are further elaborated upon via countries’ Constitutions, with Belize’s Constitution being among them.

Said differently, for democratic societies—whether spoken or not—it is understood that the unchangeable, inalterable, and immutable Will of a Democratic People is that a government can only ADD to the strength of democratic institutions and can only advance (not diminish) the rights of the people. Never is it envisioned—especially not from the point of view of the UDHR and the OHCHR—that these things are to be diluted—regardless of the size of the ballot-box victory.

The Ballot Box Cannot Tell you That

And this brings us to this salient point: The victories at the poll cannot be interpreted as a “Mandate” for reversing the rights discussed above or for weakening the strength of key institutions.

And as far as it pertains to (keeping with the analogy) “colouring within the lines”, yes, there is a fair concept of a mandate.

If, for example, the government, in consultation with stakeholders, wish to amend taxation policy, that fits within lines. If the government decides to prioritize “public good X” over spending on “public good Y”, this too falls within the lines. And, if the Government decides to strengthen the independence of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) by making it include social partner senators, this too is found within those lines, with the understanding that there remains a legitimate expectation for consultations with stakeholders.

However, the ballot box and other democratic processes—via which history has shown that even a ‘Hitleresque’ mind could somehow rise to power—can neither be construed as permission to tamper with the lines nor license to colour outside them, particularly, when the former or the latter is aimed at reducing as opposed to advancing those institutions.

Returning, then, to the statement on the purpose of the UDHR, it is worth reiterating what the OHCHR wrote:

“Fresh in the minds of the UDHR drafters was the election of Adolf Hitler through democratic processes. …UDHR can be seen as a key part of the world’s attempt to INOCULATE itself against any future would-be dictators.”

These rights and every Constitution or institution that is inspired by them, therefore, are designed to be preserved and/or advanced irrespective of what happens at the polls. In short, then, the ballot box cannot provide any anti-democratic and retrograde mandate. Frankly, in a democracy, nothing legitimately can.

Enter the 10th and 11th amendment

On this score, the Belizean people will, therefore, have to seriously weigh in the Public Sphere whether the Tenth and Eleventh amendments reflect these principles.

One should always ask one basic question: “Do the amendments (or any other before or after them) preserve or advance the Rights and the strengths of key democratic institutions which are deemed necessary for a health democracy?”

I close with a return to these words from the OHCHR: “UDHR can be seen as a key part of the world’s attempt to INOCULATE itself against any future would-be dictators.”