The August 18, 2015 House sitting marked “a wonderful occasion, a wonderful statement.” Evidently not by design. When the particular session was scheduled the prime minister was, in his own telling, “unaware that today is the anniversary of the death of Madam Justice Suzie d’Auvergne.” The truth hit him only after taking a phone call from the dearly departed’s sister, now seated at the prime minister’s invitation in the visitors’ gallery. It was now his belief that the deceased jurist’s presence would be felt by his fellow parliamentarians “not only because of the presence of her sister but because of the commitment, the sheer work, the fervor with which she embraced the process for which she was engaged.”
The engagement to which Kenny Anthony referred was as chairperson of the Constitutional Reform Commission, established by unanimous House resolution on February 17, 2004 “to examine Saint Lucia’s Constitution and to report in writing the commission’s opinion and recommendations for possible reform of that same constitution; to promote a meaningful expansion and widening of democratic participation by citizens in government; address possible weaknesses in the constitutional framework which political practice had highlighted over the years; refashion the constitution so that it better accorded with our changing social and political circumstances and promote better governance and greater equity in the constitutional framework generally.”
In his 2015 address the prime minister acknowledged the commission had taken seven years to prepare its report, which he said spoke well for the determination of its chairperson to bring this work to fruition. He further described the commission’s work as “probably the most extensive and intensive consultation ever undertaken in Saint Lucia, even prior to and after independence.” He reminded the House that the commission had conducted 116 outreach activities and hosted ten panels on public lectures attended by distinguished individuals including Hamid Ghany, Francis Alexis, Justice Hugh Rawlins, Parnel Campbell and Professor Albert Fiadjore.
With a new ring in his voice, the prime minister announced that the commission had heard even from Dr. Ralph Gonsalves—“who met his Waterloo.” Among the places the commission visited were Jamaica, St. Croix, Barbados, St. Thomas, Virgin Gorda, BVI, Martinique, New York, Washington DC, Toronto and London. Additionally, “they went throughout the nooks and crannies of this country . . . a fine testimony to the effort of the commission to get the views of Saint Lucians throughout the length and breadth of this country.”
Finally the commission had received “an outstanding 270 submissions from citizens from all walks of life, and 190 recommendations.” As for the parliamentarians who would decide whether or not there was anything worthwhile in “the most important consultation ever undertaken in Saint Lucia,” the day’s debate represented “an important opportunity for members to bring not only their collective experience to bear on the content of the report but, perhaps for the first time, to speak openly, freely and frankly about what they feel about the governance of this country and the constitution that ordains the principles by which we are governed . . . a marvelous opportunity for honorable members.”
He announced that all members of his government had been “advised that they are to engage in this debate with their conscience.” With no discernible change in his schoolmaster demeanor, he added that he had freed them of “the chains of collective responsibility.” Every member was at liberty to speak his or her individual mind. He had totally removed “the strictures so that whatever views they express in this debate will be their own and not the collective views of the government of Saint Lucia.”
He paused, as if wrestling with a troublesome recollection. “I want to make it clear,” he went on, “very clear, I want to make it absolutely clear, and of course they have been advised that, well, because, you know, one of the problems with this report is that they have a particular view of the prime minister. But just to reassure again, no sanction will be imposed for expressing your views fully in accordance with the democratic traditions of our country.” If the word flow left much to be desired, still it could not be said that he had prevented members on the government side from speaking freely.
What remains conjectural is whether any of the attendant MPs recalled that in 2003, when the House debated Section 166 of the Criminal Code, at least one among them had taken the same prime minister at his word only to be booted out of his Cabinet days afterward for being too free with her pronouncements! On this occasion he had decided not to comment on “the substance of the commission’s report” until everyone else had done so. He had a lot on his chest, he said, and wanted to speak openly. So much for lifting the “chains of collective responsibility” in the interest of his parliamentary colleagues.
He returned to the prime minister of sister territory St. Vincent and the Grenadines. “He too had a constitution that was very deeply entrenched, that required the voice of the people as part of the law-making process to amend the constitution. History records that the people of St. Vincent rejected the attempt to create a new constitution. Why? Because it was rejected by the St. Vincent opposition.”
He paused, eyed the MPs opposite, lowered his voice, at any rate his volume, while shifting to a higher key: “I once said in this House that history has some remarkable twists. Somewhere along the way we all change our views on things we once held sacred.” Who knows whether he was revisiting a certain law he had implemented in 2012 that earlier he had pronounced “oppressive, anti-worker, anti-poor!”
Again he paused, sucked in more oxygen. “I will tell you that I have fundamentally changed my views on some key provisions in the constitution. I do not believe anymore in the provisions governing the public service. I think there has to be radical changes to these provisions. I do not accept the premises on which the provisions were created to establish the public service. I have serious and fundamental problems with issues regarding the so-called independence of office. I do not subscribe to it anymore.”
Did he stop believing before 1997, the year he first took office with 16 of the 17 parliamentary seats in his pocket? Or was it in 2006 when the electorate dumped his party? Was it before or after IMPACS? He did not say. Still Ralph Gonsalves dominated his thinking. Although many had considered St. Vincent’s rejection of constitutional reform the precursor of what would happen at election time, he recalled, the SVG leader had “defied history.” His demeanor abruptly changed from priggish headmaster to mischievous schoolboy. “Now I see one or two members of the opposition smiling,” he said, “and I am wondering whether they are tempted by that possibility. For sure that is not going to happen here.”
Of what possibility did he speak? At best his statement was ambiguous. No matter, it would emerge less than a year later that even as he sought to predict his own political future his fate was already irrevocably sealed! The opposition MP for Castries Central was next to address the Suzie d’Auvergne report. He seemed especially concerned about two matters. “The right to work has been elevated from just a right, an ordinary right, to a fundamental right protected,” he observed, without spelling out the difference. “I would not say I disagree with that provision. But I do not think we can fully appreciate the magnitude of the recommendation.” He offered an illustration: “Let us say our unemployment rate is rising.
Let us say there are persons who have sought employment all over the place and have been unsuccessful. So they bring some kind of constitutional action against the state for breaching their constitutional right to work. We might be opening a hornet’s nest.” The MP may have misunderstood “the right to work,” which in the United States refers to the right of employees to work at unionized workplaces without actually joining the union or paying union dues. In England it addresses employers who are required by law to check whether job applicants are permitted to work in the UK.
The right to work, according to the d’Auvergne report, concentrated on proper standards of safety, a healthy working environment, decent renumeration, the right to associate with others and so on. The expressed fears of the Castries Central MP were altogether unfounded. He was in full agreement with the commission when it came to paying in a timely manner citizens whose lands the state had acquired.
During his introduction the prime minister had emphasized that both sides of the House had seen the need to establish the Constitutional Reform Commission. But his deputy Philip J. Pierre’s opening lines, once he’d taken the floor, suggested otherwise.
“The question is, has the constitution served us well? Has it done what it was supposed to do? Has it created crises? Has it created disruption in this country? In Saint Lucia we like to shoot ourselves in the feet. If you listen to some of the comments and the commentaries, you would think this is the worst country in the entire world. That the people who run this country are, apart from being incompetent, are corrupt, useless, could not land a job outside of this country, that they had to turn to politics to earn a living when none of this is true. I see in some of the suggestions in front of me a belief that politicians are the cause of all evil and the cause of all the problems of this country.”
As if in answer to his own questions, he said: “Since 1979 Saint Lucia has not gone through what I can say is a major constitutional crisis.” Conceivably, he had in mind what became known as “the leadership struggle” between two factions of the Saint Lucia Labour Party shortly after it took office in 1979. In truth the internecine power-play centered on secret pre-election arrangements between George Odlum and Prime Minister Allan Louisy, a retired jurist. Hardly a constitutional crisis, more a selfish pursuit of personal ambitions at the expense of the people. Pierre saw it from a different perspective. In the 1979-82 “situation,” he said, “the constitution handled the problem and the country returned to normalcy rather quickly.”
Never mind Pierre’s euphemisms, the unprecedented upheaval cost the country millions of scarce dollars, not to say serious damage to its overseas image on which depended its fledgling tourism industry. The government had barely served half its term when it was forced to resign under public pressure that also involved the then head of the local Catholic church. Special organized prayer sessions at the city’s cathedral having failed to deliver peace, an interim body not of the people’s choosing was assigned the job of running the country while preparations were made for fresh general elections. In consequence Pierre’s party was left with just one candidate standing, several of the others having lost their deposits. The lucky winner is now the nation’s governor general.
Pierre was also most concerned with the bottom line: “I believe parliamentarians should be empowered, in that their salaries and their benefits should be designed in such a way that they can live without being ministers.” If parliamentarians were adequately paid, Pierre insisted, “the need to be a minister would not be as strong as it is now.”
There was something else that bothered him: “I believe the trend or the belief that only politicians are involved in corrupt practices is something we must try to dispel.” He said the “major financial scandals were not caused by politicians.” Now leader of the House opposition, Pierre recently promised the electorate that should his party be elected to office he will enact “anti-corruption laws.”
NEXT WEEK: How much do you really know about the recommended reforms in the Suzie d’Auvergne report? Is it true that both sides of the House voted to sideline it for later consideration? And what exactly is the power of recall?
