I would like to add my contribution to the political discourse taking place in our country today, considering the looming Parliamentary Elections. The intent is not to promote the policy positions or ideological perspectives of any political party. I am sure that many of our leaders and pundits are quite adept at this type of posturing. Instead, my objective is to revisit a topic very rarely spoken of these days – Constitutional Reform.
In an article written by Larry Alexander and published in Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 28, Issue 1 (January 2011), pp. 1–24, titled “What Are Constitutions, and What Should (and Can) They Do?”, the word constitution is defined as “the fundamental law of the land, supreme as a legal matter over any other nonconstitutional law.” In Saint Lucia, the constitution grants the institutions of the state, that is, the legislature, judiciary, executive, and public service (including all government agencies), legal authority to perform specific functions. Additionally, it protects the rights and freedoms of every citizen of the country.
Further, the word reform is synonymous with amendment.
To put it plainly, constitutional reform refers to amendments to the Constitution that reflect the will of the people, in terms of the functions of the institutions of the state and the protection of their rights and freedoms.
Importantly, such reform is necessary in our society to enable citizens to play an integral role in the government and governance of our country. When citizens are consulted on laws and policies before implementation, and on major decisions before they are taken, the outcomes are often more robust. Consequently, resources are more equitably distributed, opportunities more equally shared and development more sustainable in the long term, regardless of the political party in power.
Guided by this thinking, the House of Assembly of Saint Lucia authorised the establishment of a Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) by unanimous resolution in February 2004 to:
1. “Examine Saint Lucia’s Constitution; and”
2. “Report in writing, the Commission’s opinions and recommendations for possible reform of that same Constitution.”
According to this resolution, the Commission was required, through comprehensive consultations with Saint Lucians both at home and abroad, to “review and reform the Constitution of Saint Lucia in order to encourage effective governance, to ensure that the institutions of State remain strong and responsive and that the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all persons are respected.” Indeed, one might conclude that the above was a mammoth task of great import, and much to the credit of the Commission, it was completed and the report submitted in March 2011.
It is instructive to note that the report of the Commission was debated in the House of Assembly in August 2015, but the recommendations were unanimously rejected as they did not align with the views of the political elite. One thing is certain: this decision was deeply disappointing, and many were displeased with the outcome of debate. It can be said that the will of the people, garnered through an extensive participatory process, was woefully subverted. Truly, those elected to serve have too often used their positions to advance their own political interests without consequence — the very type of predatory maneuvering the Commission’s recommendations sought to address.
The question that must be asked is: Why did the House of Assembly reject the Commission’s report? Before providing an objective response, I feel compelled to highlight three of the recommendations that may have prompted this reaction.
In the Commission’s report, it was noted that:
1. “Special Parliamentary Committees should be created as joint select committees to oversee Government ministries, departments, agencies and Service Commissions.”
2. “There should be fixed dates for Parliamentary Elections so that these elections are held every five (5) years on the 5th anniversary of the previous elections.”
3. “The right of recall should be provided for in a reformed Constitution. A recall should be automatically triggered if a Member of Parliament who was elected on a party ticket crosses the floor or changes his or her political allegiance; in cases where there is non-performance as it relates to constituency duties…; or there is a breach of any law, rule or ethical standard established by Parliament.”
These recommendations could strengthen accountability, enhance transparency and promote good governance. For example, the right of recall, as a democratic mechanism, has the potential to ensure that the decisions made in the House of Assembly are congruent with the will of constituents, especially on consequential constitutional matters. It may also serve as a deterrent to those inclined to abuse their power, misuse public resources and engage in unlawful activities. It is my firm opinion, therefore, that the report was rejected purely for political reasons, as it threatened the established order, sought to empower the people of Saint Lucia, and made it possible to hold politicians accountable for their actions and non-performance.
Let me state at this juncture that, following the rejection of the Commission’s report, the House of Assembly, instead of making amends by delivering real reforms, passed a resolution at another sitting in August 2015 supporting the establishment of a Parliamentary Constitutional Review Committee (PCRC). The committee was subsequently appointed in December 2023, and tasked with reviewing the Commission’s report and identifying recommendations capable of achieving political consensus.
To date, it remains unclear which recommendations were identified, and except for Saint Lucia’s accession to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in July 2023, none has been implemented. The decision to embrace this court stemmed not from a desire for constitutional reform, but to attain a greater political goal of replacing the Privy Council as our final Appellate Court. Although such a move is commendable, I am troubled by Parliament’s indecision on the more progressive proposals outlined above, as well as the right to health, the right to universal education up to the secondary level, and other essential reforms.
In conclusion, constitutional reform, which was promised more than two decades ago, is slowly fading into oblivion. The fact that the House of Assembly of Saint Lucia rejected the Commission’s report demonstrates that its members are more interested in maintaining political power. At the very least, it could have taken an incremental approach by implementing those recommendations of the Commission that received broad political support. The next logical step would have been to revise the remaining recommendations with the goal of achieving compromise, and ultimately implementing them to ensure public oversight and participation in the governance of our country.