DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED by a distinguished Barbadian as a plant that requires careful and tender handling.

Such statements may be taken as referring to the traditional aspects of a democracy, like fair and free electoral systems, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the Press, and things of that nature. But there is more to a democratic way of life.

Last week we saw one of the mechanisms of our democracy at work as it relates to the use by a company of its private property in the public interest. We refer to the Fair Trading Commission's (FTC) decision handed down in the application for a rate increase by the Barbados Light & Power Company Limited.

Everyone is entitled to comment on such decisions, but some post-ruling remarks suggest that a widespread grasp of the importance of mechanisms such as a Fair Trading Commission or a Public Utilities Board does not exist.

The fact is some method must be adopted for the control of monopoly operations in any country that boasts a liberal democratic system of government. Fair trading commissions and public utilities boards are the devices we have used to regulate competition and some aspects of our monopolies.

By and large, regulation has worked well, and Barbadians have been encouraged to object or intervene and challenge the presentations made by the utility companies.

This is an important part of our democracy at work, for our Constitution protects the private property of the utility companies from expropriation as much as it protects the private property of any individual.

At the same time the FTC, while respecting the use of private property for the public benefit, holds the balance as fairly as it can between the consumer and the companies.

It is not therefore a fair criticism of the FTC to advance the fact of a recession per se as a basis for rejection of the application by a utility company for a rate increase, because, recession notwithstanding, the company may have shown on the basis of the evidence presented that an increase is justified.

Moreover, if an increase is justified and not granted, then the company's viability may be jeopardised and the company is entitled to challenge the decision on legal grounds - probably too on constitutional grounds.

It is counter-productive to the fuller appreciation of the process for emotional or hot air arguments to be flung around in the wake of regulatory decisions.

The public interest is best protected by clear, precise and well reasoned interventions - which must challenge and invalidate the case as presented by the utilities - if they are to be successful!

Intervenors are therefore critical components of the regulatory democratic process. And even if they do not succeed in trumping the utility's evidence on every occasion, their contributions at the recently concluded hearings show the time has come for the statutory enhancement of their position.

Intervention is a vital cog in the process.