Opposition MPs and other Labour front-liners were on hand on Tuesday to justify their party leader’s no-confidence motion, designed to expose to the world what they considered Allen Chastanet’s outrageously unconstitutional actions in government. The result was predictable, of course. As former senate president Claudius Francis and SLP chairman stated: “They have an 11-6 majority. So one expects the motion to be defeated in terms of numbers. But that has never been the aim of the motion. The aim of the motion is to lay bare for the public of Saint Lucia and the world the misdemeanours in some instances and other misbehaviours committed by this government over the last thirty months.”
But what it may have done is fire up Chastanet’s grass-roots support as well as that of his government colleagues. If there were dissenting voices before the motion, they finally came together to dismiss the opposition’s motion as a “waste of time”. And as each domino fell on what was really a no-chance motion, and each government MP said “nay” to it in the early hours of Wednesday, it became abundantly clear that the motion quite possibly had the opposite effect to what was originally intended.
It’s been well established that supporters of the SLP tend to be more easily mobilised and hyped up for political spectacles like Tuesday’s debate. But in a stunning inversion of the norm, the battle of the party fanatics belonged to the UWP. At least half of them were carrying posters of Allen Chastanet; one even paid mocking homage to a former Prime Minister by ringing the bell all morning long. Of course, the loudest cheer was reserved for the arrival of Chastanet himself. A hint for what was to come.
Just before the commencement of proceedings, Castries Southeast MP Guy Joseph was asked by a reporter about the government’s debating strategy. “Why should I tell you my strategy?” he asked, a sly grin cutting across his face. Of course, the interested world would soon see the strategy unfold: nonstop challenges in the face of opposition assertions and errors. Much of the government’s artillery was aimed at the perceived weakest member opposite, Castries East MP and opposition leader Philip J. Pierre. The point of order blitz was demonstrably effective.
Castries South MP Ernest Hilaire defended the constitutionality of the motion. “I will lead you to an article by a constitutional expert who explains there are three types of no-confidence motions,” he said. “There have been many no-confidence motions. There have been no-confidence motions in individuals before. But somebody believes that they can throw out this story, that it is unconstitutional.”
This inability to simply focus on the alleged misdeeds of Allen Chastanet plagued the opposition throughout the day, to the point they turned to Allen Chastanet’s life before he was prime minister. Over and over government MPs taunted: “Why are we debating issues that have already been debated in this Honourable House?” The question, unfortunately for the opposition members, cut right to the heart of what was lacking in the motion and why they had such a tough day at the office; their Roberto Duran “no más” moment coming at around 8 p.m., when the opposition leader called for a vote on the motion. The government refused to acquiesce, extending the tortuous affair for a further four hours before mercifully laying it to rest.
Even when Pierre and his counterparts were listing their plethora of reasons why Chastanet should no longer be prime minister, it quickly became apparent that there was nothing that had not yet been aired before in public and forcefully debated in parliament. Criticisms both fair and unfair had already been made on platforms both in and out of the House, further highlighting the lack of a logical reason to place this motion in the House. To be fair, it’s plausible that at some point the opposition genuinely believed that a successful no-confidence motion was possible. Pay careful attention to the fact that it was carefully worded to highlight no-confidence in the prime minister and not in the government; a means perhaps to take advantage of whatever division there might be in Cabinet. Pierre even hinted at this in the House on Tuesday, challenging government MPs to say in public what they had been saying in private about Allen Chastanet.
Add to that the now infamous “new prime minister by Christmas” prognostication from an SLP organised “people’s platform” and it is more than fair to speculate that the overthrow of the PM might have been the initial aim of the motion. Its eventual stated aim: “To lay bare for the public of Saint Lucia and the world the misdemeanours in some instances and other misbehaviours committed” by Allen Chastanet and his government. Whatever else it may sound like, the line reads more like an attempt to save face. Thus, we got nothing revolutionary or ground-breaking on Tuesday. What we got was a redrawing of Saint Lucian political battle lines. And now the question is: What next for Philip J. Pierre?
