August 7th, 2017 -- In 1984, after settling the Anguilla issue and after removing the constituency that was in Anguilla, the electoral boundaries in St Kitts and Nevis were changed. An additional seat each was assigned to St Kitts and to Nevis to make 11 constituencies. For that election of 1984, the largest constituency was 4,045 and the smallest was 1,176.
That meant that the largest was 3½ times the size of the smallest. In subsequent elections, there was even greater disparity and in all of the elections held since the year 2000, the largest constituency has been as high as 3.7 times the size of the smallest one. The election of 1984 was our first as an Independent nation.
In 1980, in the last election as an Associated State, there were 10 constituencies, 7 in St Kitts, 2 in Nevis and 1 in Anguilla. The constituencies ranged in size from 3,307 voters in Constituency 2, to 1,609 voters in Constituency 3. In other words, the largest voting block was practically twice the size of the smallest. In 2017, it is closer to 4 times as large.
In Schedule 2 of the Constitution, the infrastructure for elections is set out. All constituencies shall contain as nearly equal inhabitants as reasonably practical. This is the charge laid to the Constituency Boundaries Commission. That document, the Constitution, came into force in 1983, and was negotiated by a government which came into being under “unequal” constituencies.
It appears therefore that all governments have been in violation of the dictates of this schedule.
But why is this equality important? Is it really necessary to fair elections? Why was it necessary for this safeguard to be placed in the Constitution? I have no answer to these questions; but perhaps we can engage one or more of the 25 persons who were part of the delegation to the UK to negotiate Independence. I can give you some names privately.
Even if we were to use inhabitants (that is the word in the Constitution) to get the constituencies near equal, how do we deal with the voters (this is the word used in the Act) who are not inhabitants (i.e. they reside overseas) but who are eligible, by law, to register? Currently, they number close to 4,000; a sufficient number to form one of the bigger constituencies.
Actually, during the 2006/7 electoral reform consultations, these issues of equality and overseas voters arose. There was support for equalising the constituencies by re-alignment (81% of those who favoured equality) or by an increase in number (77% of them - respondents could choose more than one method). Some persons even talked about an at-large constituency for the diaspora. Unfortunately, and unlike for the adjustment in the number of constituencies, our Constitution gives little guidance on how to achieve equality. Rather, it seems to justify a departure from equality.
Also, our latest attempts at boundary changes (in 2009 and in 2012) were successfully challenged at the High Court. Yet this ideal remains and has been commented on by successive Observer Missions.
Perhaps it is time to heed the call as stated in the 2015 OAS Observer Mission Report, which stated that the Boundaries Commission should “function as a permanent institution and be integrated by non-partisan members with the necessary technical expertise to manage such a legal and technically complex process”. It further stated that “clear procedures, guidelines and criteria” must be established for the delimitation process and must be clearly shared with all stakeholders.
This is a necessary precondition to one man, one vote and fairness to all.
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
