The Trip…Business as usual?

By G.A.Dwyer Astaphan

The news of this set me thinking on Section 55 of our Federation’s Constitution which states that whenever the Prime Minister is absent from the Federation, or by reason of illness is unable to perform his constitutional functions, the Governor-General, either acting upon the advice of the Prime Minister, or if in his own deliberate judgment he considers it impracticable to obtain such advice, may authorize some other Minister to perform those functions.

Section 55 is about the critical importance of communication, administrative cohesion, continuity and stability at the highest level of government.

Now at this time we have only one Minister, the Prime Minister. So there is no other Minister who can be appointed to act.

The question, therefore, is: can the Prime Minister leave the Federation at this time and under the present circumstances without  the provisions of Section 55 being breached?

I doubt it, but to be sure, it would be good to hear from the constitutional experts.

This is important, not only as a one-off event, but because it is part of a pattern. Over the past fourteen and a half years, even when there was a Deputy Prime Minister in place, there were times when Prime Minister traveled overseas in disregard of Section 55.

Indeed, many times he left the Federation without even notifying the Deputy Prime Minister.

And although I don’t know, and I wouldn’t know, if Mr.Sam Condor was informed beforehand of the Prime Minister’s present trip, I do know that others well below Mr. Condor’s pay grade seemed not only to be informed but also to know the itinerary and the name of a travel companion.

And I do know that Mr .Condor has not been appointed DPM, which, for me, is a signal that perhaps the PM does not want Mr. Condor to be DPM.

If  he did, both of them would have been sworn in at the same time. But we know that didn’t happen.

Can we infer disrespect? I think so.

Of particular concern with this present event raises is that, just days after an election, instead of seeing signs of a nice, clean start, we may be seeing business as usual, and a continuation of some of the bad practices of the past.

When I voted for Asim Martin at the Jubilee Stadium on January 25th, after having to stand in line for five brutal hours, I did not vote for a continuation of bad practices.

I voted in hope that the Party which I had served diligently for the past thirty years, and the Party for which I had received so much abuse and vilification( even now from some supporters who claim that I sold out and voted for PAM!), and even death threats for daring to run against the might of PAM in 1993 and 1995, would be itself the agent for change in St.Kitts.

I never advocated a change to PAM. Instead, I always called for a change of attitude and a change of leadership style in Labour.

So on January 25th, as I stood in line, I hoped and prayed that as soon as the count was over I would see positive signs of change.

Was I hoping for too much too soon? I don’t know. But the Prime Minister travelling at this time, disregarding Section 55 of the Constitution, and disrespecting  not only Mr. Condor and whoever else the PM thinks should be DPM but everybody else, is not an encouraging sign.

The bad practices to which I earlier referred also include actions which have subjected the Constitution, the stature of the office of Attorney General, the Courts, and the relationship between the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government to unnecessary pressure.

And in the process, we have seen Government incurring vast payables on costs, legal fees and other related expenses from an embarrassing string of lost cases.

These cases, you will recall, had to do with the desperate effort to change the constituency boundaries. Had that effort succeeded, Labour would probably have won all eight seats on St.Kitts.

And the desperation to win all eight seats in St.Kitts was, in my opinion, based on two objectives: first, the desire to give PAM a sound thrashing(and nothing is wrong with that); and second, to neutralize any of Labour’s winning candidates who, this time around, might want to put an end to the bad practices and the ‘business-as-usual’ approach.

This second objective of the ‘All 8 Mission’ should not be easily dismissed, because, with the six seats won by Labour, it would not be at all far-fetched to presume that surrogates and emissaries of the Prime Minister are presently feeling out winning candidates from other political parties so as to provide him with the  ‘insurance’ and comfort in numbers which he thinks he needs.

And the long period between the election and the announcement of the new Cabinet( it will be thirteen days) suggests that that process is taking place.

In addition to those challenges, the Prime Minister might find himself one vote short in Parliament as a result of the fact that, because of dual nationality reasons, Mr. Dennis Merchant cannot act as AG unless he goes in as a civil servant rather than as a Minister. Likewise, for Mr. Sylvester Anthony, but not so for Mrs. Patricia Dublin-Lewis (unless she is a citizen of Antigua & Barbuda through her mother).Of course, he can, at least theoretically, have Mr. Patrice Nisbett, but, as in the cases of Mr. Anthony and Mrs. Dublin-Lewis, Mr. Nisbett would be giving up a significant income in the private sector to take up the thankless AG’s job.

It is unlikely that Ms. Marcella Liburd would be considered for the post because she may be slated for Education, Gender Affairs and some other portfolios; and in any case it is not politically preferred for elected persons to hold down the AG job.

So if Dr. Douglas can pump up his numbers and give himself some comfort and a shield against malcontents (real or imagined) by reaching beyond Party lines, why not, eh?

Did he not say, the day after the elections, that this thing is all about “the science of numbers”?

But can the addition of successful candidates from other political parties truly bring that comfort?

Clearly, they would join on the basis of a negotiated agreement, and definitely not for business as usual.

For them, as it is for Labour, politics is the art of the possible, and the whole idea behind contesting an election is to get into government.

But they would also want to ensure, and to be seen to ensure, that the interests of their political parties, and in the case of CCM or NRP, the specific interests of Nevis, are properly addressed from their perspective.

Which is fine.

But the relationship would always be tested and subject to breakdown.

Yet, it may the best option available to the Prime Minister at this time, as he sees it.

Now if there is any truth in this scenario which I have drawn, then it seems that the Prime Minister and his closest advisers would be just as happy with CCM, NRP, and or PAM parliamentarians sitting in the Cabinet as they would be with successful Labour candidates who may appear less malleable than they ought to be( insofar as he is concerned), just so that he would get the magic numbers which he thinks he needs to comfort him.

So, again if my presumption is correct, it seems more about the requisite numbers than about Party philosophy, policies and programs for the electorate, if the Prime Minister is to be kept happy.

And, if that is the strategy he thinks he needs to pursue, then I cannot fault him.

Because as the strategy is available to others, so is it also available to him.

Let me get back to the Constitution.

During 2009 alone, we saw at least two possible breaches of it, the first in relation to Section 50 when the PM may have stretched, even exceeded, his powers in relation to the report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission; and the second in relation to Section 47 when Government was extended beyond the constitutional expiry date, which is something that is believed should happen only if ”her Majesty is at war” or if there is some other extreme circumstance that does not include  Government’s lack of success in completing  the constituency boundaries reform process in time.

I say “possible” because I am not sure.

What I am sure of is that:

(1) both actions were very worrying; and

(2) they require the urgent attention of students, professors and practitioners of constitutional law, so that the general public might be enlightened, as does this week’s overseas trip  by the Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, I call on all citizens and residents at home and in the diaspora to be ever lawful, ever thoughtful, ever respectful and ever watchful; and  to bear always in mind that no matter how they may seek to configure or secure themselves in government, or how they may seek to jockey or finesse each other, we must never let the eleven persons who we elect every five years or so have more power than we do.

Let me leave you with two examples of the kind of the blind, subservient fanaticism that destroys people’s minds, and destroys a nation and a democracy.

The week before the election I heard one fanatic say:

“Me nuh kay what nobody say, Mr.Grant nuh do nutting wrong over de Marriott!”

And the week after the election I heard another fanatic say:

“Me Prime Minister could own all de house and lan’ he like. Is grudge dey grudge!”

When we make them gods, we perish.