The recent political gymnastics inside and outside the walls of parliament have caught the keen attention of many Kittitians and Nevisians. Most will admit that they have had enough of the current political climate in the federation. Citizens would rather throw their confidence behind the best political candidates for our nation every five years. Enough of the political tribalism!
With all that has transpired in recent times however, how will the electorate’s confidence in politicians be restored? In whom will the people confide to take the federation beyond its current state?
One of the many burning issues with which the public is fired up is the implications for all political parties and ultimately the federation given the much discussed possible "Unity Government": an arrangement that allows for a collaboration of political parties with a view to overcome the current impasse in parliament and set the federation on a more stable, less contentious path, or according to the World English Dictionary: A National Unity Government is a Government formed by a coalition of parties especially in time of national emergency.
This proposed collaboration has become a hot button issue for a number of reasons. For one, the current make up of the elected members in the federal parliament indicates that six of the eleven "elected" parliamentarians oppose the leadership of the right Honourable Denzil Douglas. Former Deputy Prime Minister and cabinet member, Sam Condor, who resigned from Cabinet shortly after Dr. Timothy Harris was fired by the Prime Minister, cite their disapproval with two controversial bills, namely the Vesting of Certain Lands Bill of 2012 and the Increase in Senators Bill, as reasons for their stern opposition to the Prime Minister, in addition to the insurmountable issues they have had with the Prime Minister over the years.
Clearly, the stance of both Condor and Harris does not augur well for the sitting government because on a Motion of No Confidence, non-elected members of the house cannot vote. Currently, fifteen members sit in parliament. Eleven elected members, three senators, and the newly appointed attorney general. There is a pending Motion of No Confidence that was brought by the leader of the opposition against the sitting Prime Minister.
Despite the urging of the Chamber of Commerce and the Evangelical Association, the Right Honourable Prime Minister has insisted that the Budget, delayed since December of last year, should be presented to parliament before the Motion of No Confidence. The Prime Minister essentially faces a non "All 8" electoral seats scenario, much unlike previous terms as political leader of the Labour Party. Where did the confidence in the four-term leader go?
Many well-founded concerns of the electorate have resonated from the four corners of our federation. Stalwarts and supporters of the Labour party have made their voices heard in their condemnation of any "Unity Government." Those fervently opposed to it insist they did not vote for a "Unity Government". Rather, they voted for a candidate of the Labour party; the party they support and they cannot and will not support an alliance of any kind. Of course the ranting and raving continues despite the fact that many of these same supporters realize and admit that our federation's leader may well have lost his way. After seventeen years, do Labour supporters have confidence in their leader?
The two elected PAM parliamentarians, who clearly support the tabling of the Motion of No Confidence, have a party base that also has mixed views about any attempt to construct a unified government. While some PAM supporters welcome the idea, others are demanding an explanation citing trouble ahead. Unfortunately, PAM has yet to prove to the electorate that it can command a majority in parliament that will allow the PAM to single handedly take our country back. We have been hearing since 2012 about the launch of new candidates, yet not one has been presented to the electorate. Will the PAM supporters place confidence in a unified government?
What about the Nevisian perspective? The motion of no confidence is a federal issue but what is at stake for the people of Nevis if yet another alliance is formed with the multiple voices from the main political parties in St. Kitts? How will it work? Who will be Prime Minister? Will there be common ground between the political parties? Can a “Unity Government” exist with multiple parties who share varying philosophies?
In the past, we have seen alliances between parties in Nevis and St. Kitts but not in our thirty years of independence have we seen a collaboration of ALL political parties on both islands. Of the many political scenarios that have played out in the federation, we have never been in this unique position. Our citizens are leery of many politicians given the wrongs that have occurred under the various political parties in the past. Should our confidence be in a unified government?
The political low that we have sunken to, particularly in recent times, demands that we seek confidence in some feasible alternative. The business of the country must be carried out without the cloud of "no confidence" hanging over our government. Our people need to be redeemed with a confidence in a government that will take our country in a new direction without the all too familiar tune: "Leh Dem Tek dat, is PAM Tun now! OR We run tings! Labour forever!”
The Prime Minister insists that his former senior ministers Harris and Condor once supported the Labour party's agenda and have changed their position because of their personal agendas. They forgot that for fifteen years, they were subject to the harsh treatment meted out to them at the hands of the PAM party. They forgot that the people voted for a Labour Party government and not some "Unity Government". Dr. Harris and Timothy share similar views about the wanton style of leadership of our Prime Minister yet his Cabinet Ministers support him every step of the way. What if Sam and Tim are wrong and the other Government parliamentarians and members of cabinet are right? What if none of the remaining cabinet members are "yes men" but that as a sitting government, they practice "collective responsibility" with a view to advance the policies and programs of the government which will ultimately benefit the citizens of the federation, while Sam and Tim oppose "collective responsibility" because they are really just power hungry?
Where we are as a nation tends to be assessed by our economic standing. Our economic performance is based on various indicators such as the cost of living, poverty levels, crime statistics and our educational standards. We generally understand that to progress as a country we will incur debt. Infrastructure such as roads have to be built and maintained and housing, electricity, water and other resources have to be accessible to consumers. Civilians understand that government, in conjunction with the many entities in the private sector, must incur responsible debt to deliver these services to its citizens in a timely fashion. Citizens also understand the correlation between incurring debt and the cost that passes to them via taxes. Investors explore our lands and continuously scout for opportunities in new and emerging markets throughout the world.
Despite the serious global economical challenges, developing countries such as St. Kitts and Nevis are magnets for investors, but part of the common SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis that is done by many prospective investors includes assessing the level of confidence of the people in the government. Investors pay close attention to the political climate as this serves as a measure of how business thrives in that country. So confidence in a government is somehow connected to that country’s business and political climate.
While government seeks to operate its affairs as business as usual and encourage investor confidence, the voices of reason, the poor, the educated, those in opposition to the Prime Minister will continue to admonish the Prime Minister to table the Motion of No Confidence. It's not enough to strategically delay the tabling of the Motion of No Confidence solely because government has the power to do so. It’s not enough to suggest a budget should be debated first and expect confidence from the people when uncertainty abounds among the people as to what will happen next.
Those who say unifying cannot work are saying yes to the abuse of leadership that has become common from ALL political parties. Those who demand that their party MUST take the reins of government rather than unify have not weighed the extent to which we can truly build our nation together, with a true system of "checks and balances" that will force us to move away from the divisive path we have traveled. Out of this current impasse, a new political direction may very well evolve: one that our young people can wholesomely embrace; one that will set us apart from this divisive St. Kitts-Nevis that we have become. Maybe in so doing, we will restore the confidence in government that we so earnestly crave.
May Confidence In Our Nation Be Restored!