A proposed constitutional amendment in Barbados aimed at preventing parliamentary defections has drawn sharp criticism from prominent political scientists who warn it could fundamentally undermine democratic accountability. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, introduced by Prime Minister Mia Mottley on Tuesday, would automatically trigger by-elections for any Member of Parliament who changes political allegiance—whether through resignation, expulsion, or joining another faction.
Dr. Kristina Hinds, a former independent senator, characterized the legislation as a ‘double-edged sword’ that risks concentrating excessive power in party leadership while weakening the independence of elected representatives. ‘It opens the door to persons being arbitrarily treated within a political party and then placed in a vulnerable position by having to face the electorate once again,’ Hinds cautioned, noting the provision could enable party leaders to suppress internal dissent through the threat of expulsion.
Political analyst Devaron Bruce echoed these concerns, describing the expulsion mechanism as a ‘noose’ over legislators’ heads that would particularly stifle backbench critics. Bruce emphasized that parliamentarians’ primary duty remains representing their 12,000-plus constituents rather than party apparatus. The amendment would effectively eliminate the safety valve of independent representation, a role that has historically allowed critical national issues to surface outside major party agendas.
Notably, the amendment would mark the first constitutional recognition of political parties in Barbados—a significant shift from the document’s traditional focus on individual election. Critics argue this creates a ‘constitutional mismatch’ by elevating parties to unprecedented legal authority.
The timing and scope of the amendment have raised additional concerns, with Bruce noting it appears reactive to just two recent defections—those of Bishop Joseph Atherley in 2018 and current MP Ralph Thorne. Bruce cautioned that constitutional changes should address broader systemic issues rather than specific instances, suggesting the current approach ‘doubles down’ on executive power concentration without comprehensive Westminster system reforms.