Reduce the size of government
Published:Monday | March 25, 2013 | 12:00 AM
The EDITOR, Sir:
For the last general parliamentary elections, the number of seats was increased from 60 to 63, with the Constitution being amended to provide for a maximum of 65 seats.
One of the reasons advanced for the increase was to provide for an odd number of constituencies so as to avoid the possibility of both major political parties obtaining an equal number of seats in an election. The consequences of such are understandably frightening.
There were suggestions from some quarters then to reduce the number of constituencies to an odd number instead of the increase then contemplated and adopted. As a proponent of small government, both in size and scope, I held and continue to hold that view.
The number of members of parliament should be reduced to 57, with the apportionment of seats based on population size and not size of the voters' list.
With the continued increase in the number of registered voters, even if some of those so registered actually reside overseas or do so merely as a means of obtaining a national identification more than to exercise their franchise, the formula used for determining the number of voters per constituency remains the same.
That ought to change, especially as technological advancements and infrastructural development have improved the ability of our MPs to traverse their constituencies to communicate with and represent their constituents.
While taking steps to reduce the size of our Parliament, complemented by a smaller and more effective local-government system, efforts should be made to better prepare our parliamentarians for their roles, as too many seem uninformed in that regard or prefer to be more blind party adherents than actual lawmakers and representatives of their constituents' interests.
KEVIN K.O. SANGSTER