I offer some comments on the controversy surrounding the recent Nevis Government Elections and the broader related issue of the relationship between St. Kitts and Nevis beginning with the latter.
Before 1983 there was a single Government for St. Kitts and Nevis. The Independence Constitution created a strangely conceived Federation and provided a Government for Nevis, the Nevis Island Administration, and a Government, the Federal Government for both St. Kitts and Nevis. Thus Nevis has its legislature and administration and participates to the extent of 3 of 11 seats in the Federal Legislature. Nevis representatives have also participated in the Federal Cabinet for half of the 28-year life of our so called Federation.
The Nevis legislature and administration have exclusive authority over Government in Nevis except taxation, national security, foreign affairs and citizenship. It is interesting that, without offering to give up any of its federal power, the current Nevis Administration is, by a process it calls devolution, seeking to achieve even greater exclusive authority for Nevis. It has already this year achieved limited devolution in terms of taxation and will no doubt, following its return to power and based on its close relationship with the Federal Government, pursue the remainder of its devolution agenda.
Thus, our system gives Nevis its own increasing local Government as well as a say in the affairs of St. Kitts. St. Kitts does not have its own local Government and has very limited say in the affairs of Nevis. That is unfair.
Following Independence, there were amendments to the electoral system to accommodate the new federal set up. Later came the overseas vote which extended the franchise to Kittitians and Nevisians resident abroad. That system brought benefit in terms of lowering the voting age to 18 and it provided continuous voter registration, but it did not carefully address the regulation of the constituency in which an overseas voter must register and left great latitude to such voters to select their constituency. Residents were however supposed to register in the constituency in which they reside. Then and therefore began the practice, now widespread, of residents selecting their constituency based on political advantage.
In 2007-8 there was limited amendment of the electoral system following a process that was called a constitutional and electoral reform process. The result was no constitutional reform and partial electoral reform by way of a confirmation process which sought to embed rather than remove the abuses of the past. Now we have advanced to the next stage of abuse which is the removal of voters from the list without due process.
All parties seem to have accepted the position that the confirmation process did not entrench the persons who confirmed and that any voter who was confirmed can be removed from the list if he or she was not confirmed in the constituency in which he or she was entitled to be registered. We can expect therefore to see hundreds of challenges in the run up to the next federal election, many law suits, more controversy and time and money wasted which could be better spent on developing the country.
One would have to be a total political bigot to be satisfied with this system.
What are some possible solutions?
1. We hear a suggestion that overseas voters should be allowed to vote overseas.
2. Many think we should scrap the overseas vote altogether.
3. There has been a suggestion that a separate constituency should be created for overseas voters.
4. There ought to be tighter regulation of the registration process based strictly on residency for residents and a real connection for overseas voters.
5. Scrapping of the constituency system and its replacement by proportional representation.
6. In addition to any of the above, amend the Constitution to provide a separate local Government for St. Kitts.
7. In addition to any of the above, introduce term limits for elected representatives.
8. Campaign finance legislation.
I will consider each of these suggested solutions but before doing so let me say that continuation of the present system will create instability and will inevitably damage our development process. The system gives our country a bad name. Let me quote from the OAS Report on the recent Nevis Elections. While giving the people of Nevis credit for conducting themselves peacefully on Election Day, the report highlighted the severe weaknesses of our system in these terms:
“Observations
The Mission noted that the procedures for objections and claims leading to the addition and removal of names and the dissemination of updated lists caused controversy. In this regard, observers confirmed that in some cases, notifications to voters whose names had been objected to were delivered after the scheduled hearing date, and that the procedure for investigation and resolution of objections lacked proper definition and transparency.
On Election Day, the observers detected that a modified voter registration list had been produced for several districts on July 9th, while other districts maintained lists published on June 29th and July 1st. The Mission confirmed that voter names had been both added and subtracted to form the updated lists, thereby altering the eligibility for voting in certain areas two days prior to the election. This situation contributed to the atmosphere of confusion about and mistrust of the voter registration list that was observed during the process.
Recommendations
With the goal of strengthening the Nevisian electoral process, and given that the observers did not note any significant changes since the 2010 General Elections in Saint Kitts and Nevis regarding the electoral system or its procedures, the Mission reiterates all recommendations from its previous report and highlights the following issues from the observations of the Nevis Island Local Assembly Elections.
1. Improving the clarifying procedures for the conformation of the voter registration list.
Similar to the issues observed by the OAS Electoral Observation Mission in 2010, the accuracy of the voter registration list was contested by various political actors. Specifically, disputes arose regarding the residency of voters, the objections, claims and hearing procedures, and the public dissemination of the revised lists. In this regard, the Mission reiterates its 2010 recommendation to ‘conduct a house-to-house verification process before the next election and a claims and objections period in which the voters list is properly adjusted to reflect the current reality of voter numbers and residency. “Moreover, in light of the recent controversy resulting from the weaknesses of the procedure of objections and claims, the Mission recommends a serious review of the notification timeframe and determination of mechanisms that guarantee equity and due process for both objectors and objectees regarding registration claims.
2. Revision and update of the electoral legal framework.
While the OAS Mission observed that an important effort was conducted to improve the legal framework in 2007-2008, the complexity of the amendments and lack of mechanisms for definition of procedural and administrative modifications has created a cumbersome and complex instrument. Therefore, the Mission recommends a general review of the legal framework to consolidate and clarify the electoral regulations including further definition of the legal criteria for residence at the local and federal levels and the registration process. In addition, the inclusion of a mechanism for electoral authorities to establish clear procedures at the administrative level would allow for the improvement of issues such as closing procedures at the polling station without recourse to subsequent legal reform.
3. Increased stakeholder engagement in the electoral process.
The Mission reiterates its 2010 recommendation to develop “a cross-party accord on political financing that would promote transparency and accountability both in St. Kitts and Nevis,” as well as on questions of the implications of Diaspora voting, the establishment of mechanisms to promote female candidacies, and the criteria for legal residence and voter registration. The incorporation of civil society groups in these discussions would further contribute to the definition of equitable and legitimate electoral procedures and processes.”
In considering the OAS report, we should remember that the language is diplomatic. Even for diplomatic language it is very strong and direct. To put it in layman’s language, the system is rotten. The recommendations made in the OAS report echo recommendations that were made by civil society in the past.
Now to my comments on the possible solutions which I mentioned:
1. The first (voting overseas) may be a logical extension to the overseas vote but is the least practical and will not of itself solve the problems. In fact, it would make things worse. I recall vividly when I was a student in England that Guyana had overseas voting and there were persons on the list with addresses in England which did not exist and others which had been wiped off the map by German bombs in the Second World War. The then President of Guyana was a past master at cooking elections. It is he, I believe, who said that a Government in power should never lose an election. It would be a major and costly exercise to conduct voting overseas and it would undoubtedly create its own abuses and controversies. We could potentially have more overseas voters than resident voters. We should therefore concentrate on correcting things at home.
2. Abolition of the overseas vote and limiting the right to vote to residents would help to resolve the current problems but would have to be accompanied by the establishment of a register of voters of residents based truly on actual residence as recommended by the OAS. There is no question that many of our nationals abroad contribute significantly to the economy and development of the country, but even more come home to vote on the free charters and return happily to their adopted homes without ever contributing to the country or even caring what happens to those of us who are stuck here.
Removal of the overseas vote will also reduce the cost of elections by eliminating the need for the charters. That would be a good thing especially if it is accompanied by campaign finance legislation which requires full disclosure of monies spent on campaigns and full disclosure of overseas accounts and companies used for the purpose.
3. Another option of creating a separate constituency for overseas voters would preserve the overseas vote but remove the abuse associated with it since its introduction. The Diaspora is in fact a constituency of its own. The representative of that constituency could help to foster relations with the Diaspora and promote the country to our nationals abroad resulting in greater financial and other contributions by them. It then would not matter how many overseas nationals actually vote because they would only influence one seat.
4. Tightening of the registration system is essential, whether or not the overseas vote is retained. There should be a complete re-registration under legislation providing strong requirements for proof of residence and ongoing house-to-house monitoring by the electoral office as is done in Trinidad and Tobago to pick up changes of residence by voters. The burden of proving residence should be on the voter, not on those opposing him as is the current law. The current law means that to get someone off the list you have to prove a negative which can be extremely difficult, unless, of course, as happened in Nevis, you fail to tell them that they are opposed and strike them off in absentia.
5. Scrapping the constituency system and replacing it with proportional representation of residents only would, in my opinion, be the best solution. It would entirely remove the abuses associated with the current voter registration system. There are many forms of proportional representation in effect in many democracies across the world. We would have to select and tailor one to our circumstances. We are such a small country that removal of constituency representatives should not place any part of our country at a disadvantage from an enlightened government. The basic principle is that each party gets the number of seats proportional to the popular vote it receives. The party or combination of parties with the most seats forms the Government. I urge our young people to study this system in its many forms. There is a lot of literature on this online.
6. I gave a brief history of our system of Government at and since Independence because I believe that it has contributed to the present issues. It would be opportune and very proper to revisit the governmental relations between St. Kitts and Nevis at the same time as electoral reform. That seemed to have been the intention of the Government in 2006 but, if it was, it was overtaken by political expediency. We have had two other sets of consultations and reports from the Phillips Commission and Task Force in 1998 and 1999. We should dust off these reports and give them a fresh look.
7. Last but by no means least, we most certainly need term limits. That, combined with campaign finance legislation, would reduce the incentive for politicians and their hacks to abuse the system and would limit their ability to do so.
It is very timely to ask the question – “Are we truly a democracy, free and fair elections being an essential ingredient of democracy?” The honest answer is, “Not yet, not until we remove this blight from our system.” Only then too will we mature as a country. I urge our leaders of politics and of civil society to heed the advice of the OAS and to get together to resolve these burning issues.
