|
Introduction
Belize, so much an integral part of the Central American isthmus, has been isolated and marginalized from the other Central American countries by a politico-cultural frontier. The territorial claim of the government of Guatemala has contributed to the hardening of the barriers between the two countries, but even if that claim had never existed the mutual distrust, suspicion, misconception and hostility that exist on both sides of the border would still be present.
The prejudices and perceptions that have developed are grounded in two basic factors: the two countries were colonized by two distinct European cultures, one Spanish and the other British; and, secondly, the political history of Central America and in particular Guatemala. For most Belizeans, Guatemala more than any other country represents Central America. It is seen as the frontier that separates one way of life from another.
The British, basing themselves on the fantasy that they were occupying a barren land, proceeded to construct and define the society virtually from scratch. A handful of British settlers, utilizing the system of slavery which denied all rights to the Africans imported as labourers and sought to dehumanize them, created a social, political and economic system to which they were able to subject all who later became incorporated into Belize's political economy.
From the time of official colonization in the mid nineteenth century, the British used their political institutions to establish governmental and judicial systems in the colony, and this was the legacy adopted by the independent Belize in 1981.
Today, under the "Westminster" model of parliamentary democracy, a House of Representatives elected from 29 constituencies (dominated by two political parties) chooses from among its members the leader of the majority party as Prime Minister and the leader of the minority party as Leader of the Opposition. A Senate is totally nominated: five by the Prime Minister, two by the Leader of the Opposition, and one by the Governor General, who as the British Queen's representative is Head of State with mostly ceremonial functions. The Prime Minister names his Cabinet of ministers from among members of his party in the National Assembly, which is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The cabinet is the executive arm of government, with no real separation in effect existing between it and the legislative branch. The judiciary is to a certain extent independent, but the inferior courts are manned partly by ordinary civil servants who are subject to the executive's authority and transfer, and most of the judges of the Supreme Court have been subject to short-term contracts which it is in the executive's competence to renew or not.
It can be seen from this brief description that there is a tremendous concentration of state power in the hands of the executive, despite the conventions of separation of powers and the theoretical preeminence of the rule of the law. Although since 1981 the constitution is the supreme law of the land and the courts can declare void for unconstitutionality any law passed by the legislature, the system was developed during a long period when the British constitutional theory of the supremacy of Parliament applied, and the post-colonial political directorate assumes that, in ambiguous areas not covered by the constitution, it has inherited this colonial authority.
Partly because of the small absolute numbers in the House, and therefore of the large proportion of its members in the Cabinet, it is virtually unheard of for any member of that party to dissent from any measure proposed by the Cabinet to the House, or indeed to criticize any action of government. The Cabinet itself, governed by the convention of collective responsibility, is a monolithic body, and the power of its chairman, the Prime Minister, who has several constitutionally defined powers that give him great leverage over his ministers, becomes almost supreme.
It must be emphasized that this phenomenon that we might call a culture of authoritarianism pervades all other areas of civil society. This applies, for example, to the family, to education, to churches and most importantly, to employer/worker relations.
The Belizean people have not enjoyed a culture of freedom. They have not had the opportunity to practice democracy. They live in a constitutional democracy whose structures did not develop out of domestic social relations of production. This transplanted method, as applied in Belize, has resulted in a fragile "democratic" system where, although regular elections are "free and fair and free from fear", the opportunities for authoritarian practice by the rulers appear not as an unthinkable or exceptional aberration but as an integral part of the social, economic and political structures.
The newly independent state of Belize, with its formal democratic structures, can only be understood in its historical context, with its long period of colonial authoritarian rule and with an independence achieved by the negotiation of the rulers with the colonial power, with the conscious exclusion of the masses from that process. Belize has seen changes in its dominant mode of production, from slavery to capitalism; in its economy, from forestry to agriculture; in its international status, from colony to independent state, and in its governments. Throughout all these changes, governments have held virtually absolute power and its majorities have remained poor and powerless, exploited and marginalized.
The judicial system in Belize is based on the "common law" of England, that is to say laws and interpretations of laws developed by the courts in Britain and its Commonwealth. Although the local legislature passes laws which can override the common law, interpretations developed in the British system, if applicable, still have great weight. Although Belize has its own Supreme Court and its Court of Appeal, the ultimate legal authority for final appeals continues to be the Privy Council of the British House of Lords in London.
Under the British legal system followed by Belize, there are in effect two sources of making laws: Parliament and the Courts. The extent to which the common laws of England still apply in Belize is still a matter of dispute, as illustrated in a recent politically charged case. In October 1997, the government majority in the House of Representatives proceeded to carry out a trial of a member, found him guilty and ordered the Speaker to punish him. The member took the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution and law governing the House do not give it those powers. The Court held that it did, because the House of Commons does, and the English customary law relating to that applies here. Although that decision will almost certainly be quashed by (ironically) the Privy Council, it demonstrates our point quite aptly.
As a result of the British tradition of State institutions, Belizean laws are not all codified or exhaustive, and many areas are governed by traditional practice. One area that has had virtually no legislation (the exceptions are noted below) is that relating to not-for-profit or Non-governmental organizations. The report on Belize cannot therefore have the type of detail or history relating to legal changes that those of other Central American countries can have. We are faced here with a very different situation, and what is reported here is what is.
Belize Index
Main Page