Although the Court decisions in the Nevis case of Brantley v Daniel, Benjamin and Others are clearly of great importance, the Court cannot correct several of the weakness and deficiencies in the electoral laws, regulations and practices which that case and others have brought to public attention and which urgently need to be addressed.
The Government has a responsibility to keep the electoral law under continuous review (including consideration of feedback and complaints from Opposition parties, electoral officials and the general public) and to aim at making changes on the basis of a high measure of political consensus. This requires mature and serious political dialogue, a rare feature in St Kitts and Nevis politics but something which is absolutely essential and which our politicians are certainly capable of.
To foster reform, all politicians and political parties (including those in Opposition) have a responsibility to:
(i) accurately state the present legal position under the existing electoral law;
(ii) clearly articulate the specific changes to the electoral law and practices that they consider will improve the integrity and performance of the St Kitts and Nevis electoral system; and
(iii) refrain from irresponsible statements, even in the heat of campaigning.
The existing electoral system requires further reforms, including but not limited to the following areas:
(a) the criteria for registration in a particular constituency;
(b) the supporting documentation needed for such registration;
(c) the burden of proof when registration is challenged; and
(d) the process and procedure for such "challenge hearings".
In light of the changes in the law and the Regulations which these improvements will require, they cannot be achieved before the by-election (or island-wide election) which must take place in Nevis as a result of the Court decisions. But these matters need to be addressed, responsibly, by all political parties and civic groups as soon as possible after that election. And whether one likes it or not, it is the Federal Government that has to take the initiatives to commence the formal reform dialogue as it alone has the Constitutional right and responsibility to enact the changes.
The continued existence in future elections of the so-called "overseas voters", ie. persons who reside overseas but are registered to vote in a particular constituency within St Kitts or Nevis, has the potential to corrupt our electoral system in two ways. First, under the current law and Regulations such persons are not required to provide any real proof of their connection with the particular constituency in which they seek to be registered. As a result, many are, and will continue to be, registered in marginally-won "battleground" constituencies in which they have no true connection. This "overseas voter" registration flexibility gives them an unfair advantage and causes regular resident voters to view them with suspicion.
Secondly, political parties and candidates on all sides spend huge sums of money flying in these overseas voters to vote on election day, usually in marginal or battleground constituencies where less than one planeload can make the difference between victory or defeat. Particularly as St Kitts and Nevis has absolutely no campaign finance disclosure or other such laws, it is naive to think that secret big money donors will not extract benefits from politicians which may not be in the public interest. In a decision last year in which it ruled that financial contributions to political campaigns were protected as "free speech" under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect said that "money talks". We all know that, and should take reasonable precautions to guard against the corrosive effect of big money donors. At present we have absolutely no safeguards in that regard, but rather a system that heightens the risks of corruption. Our politics need to return to where ideas, not money, contend. The overseas resident registered voter should be removed from our electoral law. It costs too much - in more ways than one.
Our diaspora clearly has many important roles to play in our politics, but voting in a local constituency, airfare paid for by others, is not one of them. Our diaspora can legitimately give material support to the party or candidates of their choice. They can seek to influence their friends and family to vote for such candidates, and do many other proper political acts. But voting in a constituency in St Kitts or Nevis where they cannot objectively prove residence, should not be one of the things they can do by the next Federal General Election, if we are to have a fair and less corruptible electoral system.
