Proposed Elections Amendment Bill Needs Substancial Changes says Legal Luminary
 |
|
Mr. Emile Ferdinand
|
November 2, 2007 (Basseterre) - Local Barrister, Mr. Emile Ferdinand in a commentary on WINN FM, contends that if the National Assembly Elections Amendment Bill (2007) is passed by Parliament without very ‘substantial changes,’ after its passage the country’s electoral law would still be in a state where it needed to be fixed, in very important respects. What then, he asked would be the point of this Bill’s passage?
“The Bill appears to assume,” Mr. Ferdinand says, “That existing registered voters are registered in constituencies in which they have an appropriate qualifying close connection. This is simply not the reality since the elasticity in the present law has allowed persons to register in constituencies where they do not reside, and have never resided. By its clauses, the Bill will also bless existing abuses in so far as citizens who live overseas are concerned.
The Bill retains the concept of St. Kitts-Nevis domicile of origin as a basis for registration and voting in St. Kitts-Nevis. This can have the result that persons who have never ever lived in St. Kitts-Nevis as an adult can vote here. To my mind that is fundamentally unfair, undermines democracy and is likely to lead to continued abuses in our electoral system.
In a country the size of St. Kitts and Nevis where the margin of victory in many constituencies is often only double digits, or less, we should not be using as our model superpower states with very different history and traditions and where an electoral margin far in excess of our entire population will still be called a close election.”
Mr. Ferdinand also expressed concern about overseas voters. “The Bill has 5 clauses in a proposed new Section 42 (1) which lists who will qualify to be registered as a voter,” Mr. Ferdinand says. ~~Adz:Right~~
“The first clause (a) speaks of citizens who ordinarily reside in St. Kitts and Nevis. The last clause (e) qualifies Commonwealth citizens who have been ordinarily resident in St. Kitts-Nevis for at least 12 months immediately before registering.
The majority of the clauses, 3 of the 5, speak of citizens who are ordinarily resident overseas. This overseas voter emphasis is a worrying matter for me. In articulating my worry I do not think I can improve on the words of the late Sir Lee L. Moore Q.C.
“… the people living in St. Kitts-Nevis could find their wishes overruled by people living abroad….” [this can] “… subvert democracy, making the exercise of the franchise of no effect and giving rise to instability in the country.”
As Mr. Moore puts it: there are “differences between citizenship and the franchise, citizenship being concerned with allegiance and protection, the franchise being related to place of residence.” (all from The Labour Spokesman editorial, 2 November 1983).”
Mr. Ferdinand suggested the criteria for where overseas nationals register to vote, were vague and could spell problems. “I think people should be very concerned not only by the fact that overseas persons can vote, but even more so by the fact that the loose and subjective criteria for where you register will enable overseas persons to register in constituencies in which they need not prove any real connection. Their “say so” may very well satisfy the registration officer. And by choosing marginal constituencies, their votes will have more impact than the votes of persons who live here. This erodes democracy.
Allowing persons to themselves choose in which constituency they will register, without requiring them to satisfy clear and objectively–verifiable criteria will make it difficult for even well-intentioned registration officials to administer the registration process in a transparent and fair way. It has the potential to cause considerable controversy and confusion. Electoral laws should aim at creating clarity and confidence, not controversy and confusion,” Ferdinand said.
