I am writing this in answer to a comment I heard from my friend, Bernard Welsh, on WINN FM’s Inside The News program, this past Saturday, November 8th, 2014. His comment was in reference, and response, to a commentary aired on the said WINN FM, by the esteemed Kittitian lawyer, Mr. Chales Wilkin, QC, under the heading “From Crisis To Crisis”. Mr. Welsh, an able professional in his own right, couched his response in the jargon of an engineer when he said that a crisis, according to his discipline, is a situation to which the “…end result is unknown…” That may be true in the world of engineering but where vocabulary and grammar are concerned, it is not because that is not the only definition, and was certainly not applicable to what Mr. Wilkin meant.
The fact that he was in an environment where his comment went out to the masses, I have chosen to do this for dissemination to the masses as well, because, much as I respect his abilities in a field that I never had anything to do with, it would not be good to let the sole definition that he placed out there, exist on its own, bearing in mind that his idea is just one of a few definitions for the word and, in the circumstances, may be regarded as myopic.
So, in essence, and given his engineer’s definition, Mr. Welsh did not agree that there is a crisis facing the nation because, the end result is not necessarily unknown. It is important to note that Mr. Welsh is the Chairman of the National Integrity Party which describes itself as an opposition group but is finding difficulty distinguishing itself as such, given that it generally opposes the Opposition. It, therefore, qualifies as a surrogate of the governing Labour party.
The online dictionary, www.dictionary.com, describes “crisis” in the following ways:
1. a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point
2. a condition of instability or danger , as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change
3. a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person’s life
4. a point in a play or story at which hostile elements are most tensely opposed to each other.
Another of its definitions made reference to the field of medicine, describing it as “…the point in the course of a serious disease at which decisive change occurs, leading to either recovery or to death…” Thus, when one’s fate can go either way, he/she is deemed to be in critical condition. Crisis? Your call.
Let’s go back to what Mr. Wilkin spoke to. He mentioned the various conditions that that we, as a nation, have been facing over the years, culminating with the current and ongoing impasse over the government’s failure to table a motion of no confidence for nigh on two years now. He named the reasons for our crises as:
• the inadequacy of the constitution
• the overwhelming and senseless negativity, caused by political tribalism, and
• the weakness of civil society
Inasmuch as what he said may not be of comfort to all of us, we would do well to recognize the truth contained in his statement. I say that for the following reasons:
a. as the current crisis has shown, the government is taking advantage of the absence of a time line from the constitution, to determine that it is okay not to hear a motion in almost two years.
b. it is difficult not to notice political tribalism in St Kitts and Nevis, given the conundrum of rhetoric that continues unabated. Approximately 20 years ago, our own Elston “King Ellie Matt” Nero said, in one of his songs, “…from election to election, is bacchanal day and night…”
c. the current crisis is having a devastating effect on civil society but because of the political tribalism in which we engage, we are unable to come together as a unit and demand that our elected officials conduct themselves differently, and in our interest, rather than their own.
The failure of the Speaker to set the MONC for hearing and debate has placed us in a category that no other country in the British Commonwealth qualifies for. Ours is the only one that has refused to hear a motion of no confidence, despite the existence of precedence and tons of guidelines as to how it ought to have been handled.
In February of this year, Justice Darshan Ramdhani pronounced judgment in the matter, indicating that:
1. there was no impediment to tabling of the motion
2. tabling it would not have prejudiced anyone’s case that was currently in the court, and
3. the motion ought to have been tabled soonest
Consequent upon that ruling, and for fear of being held in contempt, there was no meeting of the National Assembly for approximately eight months until the Court of Appeal granted a stay of the execution of Justice Ramdhani’s ruling. Accordingly, we saw a rash of meetings of the National Assembly, including one that was announced as being of an emergent nature but which turned out not to have been necessary after all.
Since the recent meeting of the full panel of the Court of Appeal, and with the justices having agreed with Justice Ramdhani’s decision, I venture to guess that we have again entered into period during which the National Assembly will not meet because (i) the stay that had been granted, expired when the Court of Appeals pronounced on the matter, and (ii) to my legally-untrained mind, Justice Ramdhani’s order for the Speaker to table the MONC soonest, is again on the front burner and any meeting of the National Assembly at which the MONC is not tabled, would attract a charge of contempt and the attendant consequences. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what is.
The outcome of this situation is not necessarily unknown, albeit that there can be a number of them. We are not aware of how the court will rule, once the case management is concluded by December 1st, as was ordered by their Appellate Court, and the case is heard. The Speaker can win his case, but he can lose it just as easily. Additionally, either party can withdraw his case if they feel that the odds are not in their favour. Unless and until that happens, the matter proceeds as the court ordered. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what is.
The Prime Minister can ask the Governor General to dissolve the House and call fresh elections, as he has been asked and encouraged to do or many months now.
However, elections are another area of crisis because the Prime Minister has vowed not to schedule one until what he described as the “illegal” electoral boundaries will have been realigned. The Opposition, on the other hand, is prepared to block any move by the government to do anything like that, having already done so once, during this election cycle. However, one Leroy ‘Fishy” Percival, a staunch supporter of the government, added another dimension to the situation when he said publicly, that he intends to file an injunction to ensure that there would be no election unless and until the boundaries are realigned. If that is not a crisis, I don’t know what is.
The Opposition complains that much of what it requests by way of permission to conduct marches and host functions in public is continuously frustrated by the police. For example, their requests to march on Church Street, in front of Government Headquarters, have never been granted. However, about a month ago, a group of protesters on Nevis, supported by the Opposition, was granted permission, by the same authority that denies the Opposition on St. Kitts, to march in front of the Administration Building. It is important to note that the Opposition on St. Kitts is aligned with the Government on Nevis while, conversely, the Opposition on Nevis is aligned with the Government on St Kitts. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what is.
Crisis? Your call!
*************************
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
