I offer these reflections and comments as St. Kitts and Nevis approach the 30th anniversary of our independence.
Despite being one of the smallest nations on earth, we have a lot to be proud of and thankful for. We have made significant strides in improvement of the quality of life over those 30 years. We have advanced in the basic needs of shelter, health care and education. Our infrastructure has been substantially improved. Despite the current difficult economic times, we are transitioning relatively well from a sugar economy to one of tourism, education and other services. With our fertile soil and public ownership of the lands suited for agriculture we should have been a lot more advanced towards feeding ourselves. The limited progress in that area is a travesty which needs to be addressed urgently. We must also address our relatively poor productivity and standards of service and improve our competitiveness.
However, as we attain this milestone, we continue to face a political crisis due largely to the weakness of our constitution and our governance system and our failure to mature as a people in our attitudes to our country, ourselves and to each other. Country above Self is as elusive a concept as it was 30 years ago. My old school’s motto of “Principles not men” has long gone through the window. As a result our democracy is tenuous and fragile and we remain mired in the controversies which marked our attainment of independence and the animosities which predate that landmark.
It is worthy of note that, while we have been independent for 30 years, we have been self governing for 46. I make that observation because the period of statehood between 1967 and 1983, in which there was full internal self governance, saw events which have influenced the course of our nationhood. I refer in particular to four such events or series of events.
1. Statehood began in 1967 with unrest in Anguilla which was unhappy with its association with St. Kitts and rebelled. Within months of the beginning of statehood, the new state of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla was embroiled in a state of emergency with leaders of its political opposition in jail and accused of treason. While Anguilla succeeded in separating itself from St. Kitts and while the opposition leaders were never convicted, that period spawned the political tribalism which remains the biggest obstacle to true national development. Labour and its supporters thought that PAM had tried to overthrow the government and PAM and its supporters thought that Labour was dictatorial and sought to get rid of their leaders. I am not in a position to make a determination on the factual accuracy of those competing accusations but they have existed for 46 years and our country will not achieve true independence until that unhealthy rivalry is replaced by a mature political culture.
2. While Nevis remains part of the nation, it too had serious misgivings for a hundred years before 1967 at being lumped by the British with St. Kitts. In 1977 an unofficial referendum was held in Nevis and 99 per cent of the people who voted did so in favour of secession. It was not surprising therefore that when the NRP held the balance of power after the 1980 general election, they used that power to seek to redress the wrongs that they perceived to have been done to Nevis by St. Kitts. This resulted in the constitution we adopted at independence which is another source of our problems as a nation.
3. The ignoble and summary dismissal in 1981 of Sir Probyn Inniss as Governor of the associated state was another landmark event which occurred before independence, but which has had the lasting effect of diminishing the role of the Governor General. That to our detriment has continued for the 30 years of our independence depriving the nation of a national figure who can rise above the fray of politics, consult regularly with all segments of the society and significantly influence the standards of governance.
4. Another event of significant economic and political importance which occurred in the statehood period and has had a lasting effect, was the assumption by government in 1973 of the assets of the sugar industry comprising the sugar factory and most of the land in St. Kitts. That was a very positive event, but the issue of allocation and use of that most valuable national asset has become a political football instead of the positive and unifying force it should be.
I will move to the independence constitution and issues of governance but before doing so let me, in expression of the patriotism generated by this important milestone, say how blessed I feel to have been born and lived for all but four years of my life in this lovely country. For the same reason I am saddened that at this time we are once again in the middle of a major political crisis, the third since 1967. And it will not be the last, unless we reverse the political culture that has provided fertile ground for the attitude of win at all costs, the tit for tat and the political posturing and manipulation that have put us in that crisis. In its place we need a culture that recognises politics as a competition of ideas and plans and the ability to execute the plans and not as a conflict of men and personalities. We need respect for the views of others and education of the electorate, not vilification and deification of individual politicians. We need civil debate not mudslinging and vulgar abuse. Until we end the prevailing culture that the country belongs to the political party in power; until we end the entitlements and handout mentality that has developed out of the political culture and makes the country far less productive than it could be; until we end the dependency syndrome tying individual economic advancement to support of the party in power, we will lurch from crisis to crisis. We most certainly need improvements to our constitution and governance laws and practices, but without a change of political mentality those will be meaningless.
To show that I am not alone in those views, let me now quote from the report in 1999 of the Constitutional Task Force appointed by the government and headed by the late Sir Fred Phillips (the first Governor of the associated state of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla). The Task Force included two other prominent Caribbean nationals and two prominent St. Kitts and Nevis citizens, namely Mr. Cedric Harper and Professor Simon Jones-Hendrickson.
Under the Section of its report headed “Governance” the Task Force began with this statement: “We said above that we found many people in St. Kitts and Nevis intolerant of politicians – this is a phenomenon that the 1998 Phillips Commission also discovered.”
They also said: “You could have the best-written constitution in the world; it would not matter if those primarily responsible for operating it did not approach their job with maturity and with the best interests of the country, as distinct from personal, insular and/or party interests, constantly at heart.”
I end this section with a quotation from Albert Einstein who said, “You can’t solve a problem with the same mindset that created it.”
Assuming that we will mature, change the mindset and improve the political culture, I turn to the constitution and governance issues.
I begin by noting that the constitution was established when a PAM/NRP coalition held political power. The basis of the electoral system, which still applies in large measure, was also introduced under that government. In its so-called electoral reform process, the Labour government kept in effect the basis of the electoral system which they had criticised when in opposition. In 1993 minority government was illegal but in 2013 it is okay.
I make those points to preface my comment that, as the Phillips Task Force noted, constitutions and laws should not be made or operated for political convenience, but for the long term and the good of the whole country.
Many of the changes which I will go on to suggest are needed to our constitution should have been addressed at the outset, but the focus then was on the emotive matter of the relationship between St. Kitts and Nevis.
I comment also that, based as it is on the Westminster model, our constitution leaves significant matters to convention. Without expressly making them law, the system assumes that we will automatically observe such conventions in the manner accepted by British tradition observed in the Commonwealth.
As the Motion of No Confidence has shown that does not work here and conventions are applied selectively. The convention giving priority to a Motion of No Confidence is totally ignored. What would happen, I ask, if the Queen totally ignored the convention that she should consult the government of the day on the appointment of the Governor General? We wouldn’t hear the end of it if she appointed a Governor General of her own choosing. She would be called all sorts of names and we would then get constitutional change to remove her and become a republic.
Our 30-year history shows that we should legislate the conventions in the greatest possible detail and not have to rely on politicians to respect them.
I set out 13 areas in which, based on the experience of our 30 years of independence, our constitution and our democracy can be improved.
1. The federal structure. In 1980 the NRP obtained the political balance of power which enabled Nevis to entrench its protection in the constitution. That protection is given by:
- the right to secede;
- the establishment of the Nevis Island Assembly with exclusive legislative powers over most matters affecting Nevis the main exceptions being taxation and security;
- the establishment of the Nevis Island Administration with substantial executive powers; and
- a guaranteed minimum number of seats in the National Assembly regardless of voting population.
I have no issue with the right of Nevis to secede, but I have always argued against the structure of Nevis having a separate Government and also significant influence on the governance of St. Kitts. The 30 years have cemented my views. I think we need to revisit the so called federal structure. This was first done in the Phillips Constitutional Commission and Task Force of 1998 and 1999, which consulted with the country and made recommendations for change. We should dust off their reports and look again at creating a truly federal system which, while protecting Nevis as the smaller member, is more democratic in effect. There is in my opinion no justification for Nevis to have its own Government and also a guaranteed minimum number of seats in the National Assembly. A more balanced formula is needed.
2. We should also revisit our system of representation in the National Assembly. The integrity of the constituency system which we adopted at independence has been undermined by the so called overseas vote and the very lax laws which made that possible. By having the right to vote thousands of persons living abroad, with no real connection to a constituency, are allowed to determine the representation of the constituency, without bearing the consequences of their decision. I am reminded of the story of the well dressed lady, who, when asked at the Basseterre Ferry Terminal on election day where she was coming from, said that she had been to Nevis to vote and she didn't realise how nice Nevis is. If we are to maintain the overseas vote then we should do away with the constituency system and move to proportional representation.
The past 30 years have taught us that our politicians will not give up political advantage for the sake of democracy. It is time that we insert into our constitution the critical provisions of our electoral system so that it will be more difficult for politicians in future to amend the system for partisan purposes.
These should include defining who has the right to vote and, if we retain the constituency system, where.
3. Another issue for careful consideration is term limits. A few years ago I did a commentary on Winn Fm in favour of term limits of 3 terms. Many people took issue with me after the commentary, not on the need for term limits, but on my suggestion that the limit should be 3 terms. Very few people with whom I have spoken want more than 2 terms. I have noted the extent to which this subject is being discussed particularly among young people.
Back in 1999 the Phillips Task Force said this on the subject: “It was strongly represented to the Task Force that a limit of two successive terms (not necessarily ten years) should be set for Parliamentarians, both elected and appointed. The person could re-enter Parliament after an intermission of one term. The Task Force feels that this proposal should be given serious consideration in all its aspects.”
4. Election campaigns have become an expensive process. While it is important to our democracy that those seeking office get their message out and that costs money there comes a point at which money can undermine the system. Elections should not be bought. Those who provide vast sums expect a return on their investment and that return is usually provided not by those who received the money, but by the country. I cannot put the argument any better than did the President of Trinidad and Tobago at the recent opening of Parliament there. He said, “...Election campaign financing is a veritable juggernaut that results in financiers arrogating political power unto themselves and thereby undermining the system of governance.”
He continued: “We must really get serious. The time has come when we must bite the bullet of campaign financing reform and introduce appropriate measures for disclosure, reporting and enforcement laws to ensure transparency and accountability in the management of the country’s electoral system.”
The need for campaign finance laws is even greater here because overseas voters are flown in to vote and I have never heard an ad stating what the cost is of a ticket for that purpose from London, New York or Toronto. Some legal minds think that it is electoral bribery to provide a charter for overseas voters, but whether that is good legal opinion or not, the public has the right to know who provides the money for the charters and the other massive spending on election campaigns. That right to know should in my opinion be recognised as a fundamental right in the constitution,which should also set out the structure of the system of disclosure. That would set the framework for the necessary legislation and make it more difficult to frustrate the right.
5. The past 30 years have also shown that the system established by the constitution to oversee the electoral process is inadequate. We need a larger Electoral Commission with stronger provisions to ensure independence of the Commission from political interference. The constitution should be amended to require the National Assembly to provide a budget to the Electoral Commission and for that body alone to administer the electoral office and to hire and fire staff. The constitution should also require the Commission to issue a full and complete report after each election. The electorate should not have to rely solely on reports from outside observers.
The constitution should also mandate that a special division of our Supreme Court be established to resolve electoral complaints on a continuous and priority basis both before and after elections.
6. Likewise the provisions of the constitution on the Electoral Boundaries Commission should be amended to add non political party members and to set out in more detail than currently exists the principles which should govern the exercise by that body of its powers to recommend changes to electoral boundaries. Of course, my preference is for no Boundaries Commission at all. Proportional representation would make that body redundant.
7. The powers of the Auditor General of oversight of the public purse should be expanded to include oversight of the award of Government contracts to promote greater transparency. I use the words “public purse” in the widest sense to mean not only the Consolidated Fund but all public monies however called and by whomever managed. The Auditor General should have a budget which allows him to hire the best available staff and to engage outside auditing and forensic accounting help where necessary. The budget should allow him to establish and maintain a separate office and his own staff. He should be given power to publish periodic and special reports where he considers necessary. That strengthened office would be a good location for oversight of Integrity in Public Life legislation.
8. Provisions should be added to the constitution to mandate that a Motion of No Confidence be brought before the National Assembly within 14 days and in priority to all other new business of the Assembly. Making those provisions a part of the constitution, instead of leaving them to convention, would prevent a repeat of the current state of affairs in which this fundamentally important convention is ignored with blatant impunity.
9. The constitution should be amended to prohibit Senators from voting on legislation regulating or affecting the composition of the National Assembly, for example the increase in the number of Senators, changes in the number of constituencies and changes to the constituency boundaries
10. The Speaker of the National Assembly should be elected in a ballot at the time of each general election. While that would not guarantee his independence, it would expose candidates to public scrutiny.
11. Our Courts have recently ruled that candidates for political office have a fundamental right of access to the Government owned media. That was agreed by all political parties as long ago as 1994 in the Four Seasons Accord, but to no avail. The only thing agreed in that Accord which has been meaningfully implemented was the election in 1995.
We should add to the constitution provisions to give effect not only to access by politicians but to circumscribe the access of the public to Government owned media. Such access is part of our fundamental right of free speech and should be fully and meaningfully implemented.
12. The dual nationality clause should be removed from the constitution. It creates the ridiculous anomaly that a person who was born here and then takes a second nationality of choice cannot seek elective office, but his son or daughter who was born abroad and has two nationalities, may not be debarred.
13. The Bryant clause should also be expunged. There is no genuine reason to prohibit a person who has obtained citizenship by residence from being elected to the National Assembly, while you allow a person whose grandfather was born here, but who has no other connection with the country.
The 30th anniversary should prompt the entire country to deep and honest reflection on where we have reached as a nation. Thirty years in a human life is usually a point of growing maturity. So it should be with the nation. Let us not make the same mistake that was made 30 years ago when the focus on our constitution was narrow. Let us with the experience of 30 years begin a concerted debate on our entire governance system. When and however the current crisis ends, the issues I have raised will remain. We owe it to future generations to address those issues without further delay and unblinkered by partisan politics.
