Elisha Norbert’s decision to stand as the United Workers Party candidate for Micoud North has ignited a crucial debate in Saint Lucia about the rights of public servants to participate in politics. More than just a school teacher and public servant, Norbert has become a symbol of resistance against the colonial-era Public Service Staff Orders that continue to restrict political involvement by public servants. His courageous stand has exposed the tension between outdated regulations and the constitutional freedoms guaranteed to all citizens, making him a catalyst for much-needed reform.
Saint Lucia’s Constitution, the supreme law of the land, explicitly guarantees every person the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form or belong to political parties. Section 11 of the Constitution states that no person shall be hindered in enjoying these rights except with their own consent. While some restrictions on public officers are permitted if reasonably required for the proper performance of their duties and justifiable in a democratic society, the blanket ban imposed by the Staff Orders is overly broad and unjustifiable. The Public Service Commission’s recent letter to Norbert, which has gone viral on social media, threatens disciplinary action for his political involvement, highlighting the urgent need to reconsider these colonial-era restrictions.
These Staff Orders, inherited from British colonial administration, prohibit public servants from engaging in active politics, including standing for election or holding office in political parties. However, the United Kingdom—the source of much of Saint Lucia’s constitutional and administrative framework—has adopted a more nuanced approach. In the UK, while senior civil servants in politically sensitive posts are barred from political office to preserve impartiality, most civil servants are allowed to participate in political activities with safeguards to ensure neutrality. They may join political parties, campaign, and express political views, provided they maintain impartiality during official duties. Civil servants who stand for elected office generally must resign or take leave but retain the right to political participation as citizens.
This UK model balances the constitutional principle of political neutrality in the public service with the democratic rights of individuals. It recognizes that public servants should not be entirely excluded from political life but that reasonable, narrowly tailored restrictions are necessary to maintain public confidence in an impartial civil service. Saint Lucia’s blanket ban, by contrast, remains a colonial relic that has not evolved to reflect these balanced principles or the constitutional rights enshrined in the country’s supreme law.
Norbert’s challenge to the Public Service Commission’s letter is not merely a personal battle but a fight to dismantle the colonial shackles that have long suppressed the political voices of public servants in Saint Lucia. His case has galvanized public attention and social media discourse, shining a spotlight on the urgent need to align public service regulations with Saint Lucia’s constitutional guarantees and democratic values. Across the Caribbean, courts have increasingly rejected similar blanket bans. For instance, the Barbados High Court ruled that prohibiting all public officers from political involvement was unconstitutional because it was overly broad and disproportionate. Other jurisdictions have emphasized that restrictions must be reasonable, necessary, and narrowly focused on protecting the integrity of the public service without unduly infringing on fundamental freedoms.
The Public Service Commission’s argument that political neutrality requires banning all public servants from political activity is therefore flawed. While maintaining an impartial public service is important, this objective can be achieved through reasonable measures such as restricting political activity only for senior or sensitive positions, requiring leave of absence for those seeking elected office, and enforcing rules against political activity during official duties. These measures respect both the need for neutrality and the constitutional rights of public servants as citizens.
By standing firm in the face of institutional pushback, Elisha Norbert embodies the spirit of constitutional democracy, asserting that public servants have the right to participate fully in the political life of their country. His stand challenges Saint Lucia to shed its colonial-era restrictions and embrace a more inclusive, democratic future—one where public servants can exercise their political rights without fear or limitation. Reforming these outdated regulations to respect constitutional freedoms and align with regional and international standards is not only necessary but imperative for the continued growth of Saint Lucia’s democracy. Embracing a balanced approach that safeguards public service neutrality while protecting individual rights will strengthen both governance and the democratic fabric of the country.