Symposium on Democracy Brings Back Memories

On Tuesday and Wednesday this week Saint Lucia hosted a symposium called “Enhancing Democracy through Public & Civil Society Engagement in the Legislative Process,” on the 5th floor conference room of the Financial Administrative Centre. The brainchild of House Speaker Andy Daniel, and sponsored by Sisters for Change-Equality & Justice Alliance, the symposium’s aim was to discuss myriad issues within our democratic processes, such as public engagement in legislative reform; comparing Saint Lucia’s legislative process to those of other regional states; and the challenges of Civil Society in engaging parliament. 

Present was Prime Minister Allen Chastanet, Opposition leader Philip J Pierre, several other government and opposition MPs including Guy Joseph and Ernest Hilaire, Senate President Jeannine Michele Giraudy-McIntyre, and Andy Daniel, as well as the Speakers and Senate presidents from the Bahamas, Barbados, and Antigua-Barbuda. Also present were representatives of several local Civil Society groups, most notably Merphilus James, President of the National Council of and for Persons with Disabilities, Catherine Sealys of Raise Your Voice St Lucia, and Julian Monrose, of the Trade Union Federation and Saint Lucia Teachers Union.

No surprise that the topic of government transparency and lack of consultation with key stakeholders came up. What had been a deafeningly quiet room earlier abruptly was abuzz with cross-talk. Several Civil Society reps had expressed the opinion that they were not given sufficient opportunities to influence the legislative process. Antigua and Barbuda’s Senate President Alincia Willims-Grant made the point that the avenues to influence the legislative process through parliament are there and have not even been close to being fully utilized; neither by Civil Society groups, nor by members of the general public. This was backed up by St Lucia’s Clerk of Parliament Lyndell Gustave, who pointed out that anyone can make an appeal to parliament through his/her Parliamentary Representative, but this is seldom if ever done.

Could it be that the real issue is not a lack of access to our legislative process per se, but ignorance of the avenues for influence over our parliamentary democracy? Food for thought.

Speaking of food for thought, Castries Southeast MP Guy Joseph, was on hand to provide some during a question and answer session at the symposium. “The discussions are interesting,” noted Joseph. “But we keep on using the term ‘the voice of the people’, as if a General Election is not the voice of the people.” 

The Castries Southeast MP went on to state that the one party government in Barbados was chosen by the people, and that this has happened on several occasions in Grenada as well. “Are we not respecting these results as the voice of the people?” He asked. 

He went on: “In our [Saint Lucia’s] case, over the last three elections we’ve not had a two thirds majority in parliament for any of the parties that have formed the government, nor a two term government. When the people are not pleased, they change the government. That is the voice of the people in my opinion. And that’s not taking away from any of the issues that have been raised here. And even the voices that speak, whether on the government side, on the opposition side, or in the wider public, what we call Civil Society, cannot be divorced from the politics of our country. People have their own biases. For instance, if it’s one party in government, then Civil Society voices become louder, but when it’s another, the voices subside.” 

Could Joseph have been referring to the typical increase of industrial action whenever his party is in power? He did not say. He summed up however, by stating: “The general public is capable of deciphering for itself. We have to gauge how we interpret the people’s message without taking anything away from the discussions here.”

To this PM Chastanet added his voice: “This issue of the effectiveness of Civil Society is something I have personally been involved with and advocated, for a very long time. I genuinely believe true democracy is when you can have as many voices as possible. But Civil Society must also live up to the same rules they’re putting onto the politicians, of transparency and accountability and clarity. And there can’t be this level of inconsistency. I believe the standard we’re trying to apply to parliament should also apply to our Civil Society.”

“But I want to delve deeper than that.” Chastanet went on. “Do our Civil Society entities have sufficient resources to actually deliver on that? I see some higher ups in Civil Society groups making decisions, but when I speak to the membership they don’t know. So it is about understanding the accountability of what we do to our people. ”

Chastanet then named four powerful Civil Society groups in Saint Lucia; the Chamber of Commerce, the Hotels Association, Manufacturers Association and Employers Federation, highlighting that their effectiveness lies in the fact that they all generate revenue and have a very wealthy membership.

He went on: “In my opinion, Civil Society needs to actually get involved with policy, long before it gets to parliament for the first reading. In fact, they should be walking the halls of government, know what’s going on and actually help to generate ideas. But we’re not seeing our Civil Society doing that.”

What’s perhaps most interesting about Chastanet and Joseph’s contributions to the discussions at this week’s symposium, is how they compare to parliamentary statements on democracy in the past. It should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that these sorts of discussions have been done in the past, albeit under different circumstances. Take for instance the 2015 Parliamentary Review of the Suzie d’Auvergene Constitution Reform Commission report. During that Special Parliamentary Session, the then Prime Minister Kenny Anthony stated: “While obviously we must ensure that we answer to the rules of our democracy and allow for citizen participation, we must not create a model that leads to any kind of paralysis.”

Philip J Pierre, then Deputy Prime Minister was even more forthright: “Has the constitution served us well? Has it done what it was supposed to do? Has it created any crises? If I look back I would say we like to shoot ourselves in the feet. The fact is that the people are the ones to tell us how to run the country and not any group of men or women who believe they have better brains, [civil society perchance?], or who do not want to take the hassle and the pressure of running for political office but want to constitutionalize their position to tell people what to do. They believe, probably because of their education, their background or their class or financial status that they have the right to dictate what’s happening in this country. And I see that clearly in some of the provisions of the report. I see that clearly.”