There was method to the insinuated madness of Claudius Francis when, via his radio show, he invited the Public Service Commission to throw in the towel. By all that has since been said—not to mention the political culture—it would not be altogether farfetched to infer the recently Senate president’s secret purpose was to secure a PSC unquestionably loyal to the St Lucia Labour Party. A PSC the Red Zone could count on.
Francis had been savvy enough to keep his brass knuckles gloved: demanding PSC members hand in their resignation to the governor general centered, as the Senate president put it, on an illegality. At any rate as determined by Mr. President. It remained for others to challenge his judgment. Or to ignore his contention that the appointment allegedly made without consultating with the Leader of the Opposition was contrary to Clause 85 of the Constitution of Saint Lucia.
Since the Senate president’s public denunciation of the PSC, it has emerged that by letter dated 23 February 2010, then Prime Minister Stephenson King had invited the Leader of the Opposition to comment on the composition of a proposed Public Service Commission. On March 10, the Leader of the Opposition had acknowledged the prime minister’s letter “advising” him of proposed recommendations for appointment to the Public Service Commission and the Teaching Service Commission. The Leader of the Opposition had “no objection to the persons recommended for appointment to the Teaching Service Commission.”
On the other hand, he did not support the appointment of two particular candidates for appointment to the PSC. In the first instance, because she was “allegedly close” to the prime minister’s office, and an employee of the Government of Saint Lucia, especially one handpicked by the political directorate, “ought never to be appointed to the Public Service Commission.”
As for the second candidate: She was “a known supporter and political operative of the United Workers Party.”
The Leader of the Opposition had further observed: “The courts have repeatedly emphasized that Public Service Commissions have been created in Commonwealth Caribbean Constitutions to insulate and protect public officers from political influence, whether exercised by the executive or otherwise . . .”
Here it was yet again, naked as can be: Kenny Anthony’s famous iron fist. This time it came down with crushing impact on the unprotected heads of two citizens the day’s prime minister had recommended to serve on the PSC. Now, I am not about to waste time going into the merits of the objections relating to a citizen “allegedly” close to the prime minister’s office, except to say the Constitution offers protection against jaundiced PSC decisions, whether in the form of a Public Service Appeals Board or the courts—an indisputable fact that Kenny Anthony, Ausbert Regis and certain Bordelais personnel are familiar with!
As for the Opposition Leader’s angry objections to the second candidate’s appointment, that’s the one that struck me with dizzying impact: “I cannot support the recommendation to appoint Ms [name withheld] to the Public Service Commission. She is a well-known supporter and political operative of the United Workers Party.”
I ask you, dear reader, how many citizens of this little island of ours are not known supporters of one of our two main political parties? Does that automatically mean the nation is to be denied their services whenever a particular party is in office? Does that mean they should be denied opportunities to a living? Should their survival depend on who is the day’s prime minister? If indeed this has long been the culture, as I’ve been assured, must it be retained regardless of cost to the nation?
I believe Claudius Francis is partial to the view, as I am, that governments ought not to be saddled with the same public service personnel they had criticized or labeled corrupt during their anything-goes campaigns for office. By now our Constitution should have been readjusted to accommodate automatic resignations upon the arrival of new administrations, anyway. In the absence of such laws, denials of or removals from public service jobs should never be based solely on presumed connections with a particular party.
Egregious is the practice—by both political parties, let it be noted—of victimizing particular citizens based on the paranoiac suspicion that if hired they will spend their work hours sabotaging government projects, in the assumed best interests of their preferred party. In any event, there are remedies for public servants who do not perform as officially required.
Shortly after his party resumed office in 2011, Prime Minister Kenny Anthony, while waving what was obviously an imaginary olive branch, recalled several indignities suffered while he was leader of the House minority. He promised to spare future leaders of the opposition similar embarrassments. As proof of his new attitude, he promised the day’s holder of the office several improvements, including tax-funded transportation and appropriate respect from members on the government’s side of the House. While in the past opposition viewpoints had been paid scant regard by the majority, the third-time prime minister pledged henceforth to treat opposition positions with the same high regard automatically afforded government MPs.
If memory serves, while underscoring the vital importance of working together as a nation, regardless of economic weather, the prime minister reminded House colleagues that “the problems facing us cannot be resolved by the same thinking that created them.”
His call for national unity will largely be ignored should the prime minister permit that section of the nation he perceives as supporters of the opposition party to be further convinced he cannot help tripping over his perceived multi-faceted nature, and that they are expected always to demonstrate loyalty to his various faces—or starve!
(The preceding STAR feature under a different title was first published in 2012)
