Nothing illustrates all of this better than the recent controversy, and the stubborn refusal of the Chairman of the Commission to make the simple admission that he has not conducted the proceedings of the Commission properly, that elementary rules of procedure have not been followed by him, and that the argument that he has put forward for aborting the proceedings of the Boundaries and rushing to transmit his version of boundary reform to the Governor General is not credible.

 

When we ourselves set high standards for ourselves, it is natural that the public will be disappointed if we do not achieve those standards. The Government of the St.Lucia Labour Party has long and strongly argued that the process of boundary delimitation undertaken in the past has been flawed. They have argued that the time has come to make a new start and to do things the “right way”. And to this end the Government decided that it was best to politically neutralise the process by getting independent advice and counsel to indicate possible ways forward.

 

In this case “independent” meant “foreign”, and the Government availed itself of consultancy assistance from first, the Commonwealth Secretariat and subsequently, the Organisation of American States. In the last decade or so, both of these institutions have been heavily involved in rendering advice on electoral reform and procedure to so-called developing countries: witness the Commonwealth Secretariat’s deep involvement recently in the Zimbabwe elections, and the OAS’s involvement in the elections in Haiti.

 

Prime Minister Anthony’s enthusiasm for a new start in this matter is also recorded in the report submitted by the OAS consultant. He observes that:

 

“The Prime Minister and the majority of our interviewees expressed the need to undertake the delimiting exercise in a non-partisan fashion. Public education and transparency must prevail...As many concluded, including His Excellency Prime Minister Dr. Kenny Anthony, the workings of the ...Commission must be seen as fair, non-partisan, and transparent. This requires public participation at the community level”.

 

The Commonwealth Secretariat Report broadly supported Labour’s claim that the system as operated in the past had been flawed. Though the UWP leadership does not accept all its criticisms, it has been made clear that we must resist any temptation to fight the battles of the past, and that we must move forward. To this end the relevant Party Committee held a number of discussions, and prepared its proposals for boundary reform well in time for the beginning of the Boundary Commission’s deliberations.

 

It is truly amazing, all of this having been said, the Chairman of the Commission in its first meeting, did not see fit to consider the reports of the Consultants when requested so to do by the Opposition representatives, on the curious ground it is alleged, that these foreigners do not know more than we do and cannot tell us what to do - as if the latter is the role of consultants to any organisation or committee. It certainly is curious coming from one who represents the highest level of education in our country - the University of the West Indies.

 

This red herring of an excuse was the first indication that something might be going wrong. It certainly indicated that Chairman Matthew Roberts was perhaps not in accordance with the public expressed view of the Prime Minister. Of course, the Chairman could well argue that his Commission, constitutionally independent, is not bound to listen to the Prime Minister or any consultants.

 

That the Opposition representatives had to request that a Secretary be provided to take notes of the meetings proceedings had already suggested a state of mental unpreparedness and lack of knowledge of what is required in matters of this kind. Yet this can hardly be so, since the Chairman came to the meeting with a fully prepared document for boundary delimitation apparently prepared by himself.

 

It is the request that there should take place a physical review  - a walkabout - to examine some of the Chairman’s proposals for delimitation, that seems to have broken the camel’s back; though this request was unanimously agreed by the Committee.

 

For the Chairman’s admission, at the next meeting of the Committee, that he had had  difficulties in obtaining transport for the Committee to go around the country, followed by his conclusion that since in the interim some of his boundary delimitation recommendations had been leaked to the press,  this must lead to an ending of the Commission’s efforts to review the constituency changes, was truly curious, astounding and incredible. They suggest the throwing up of another red herring, and the question is why. Roberts will of course have been aware of the Prime Minsiter’s publicly expressed outrage at the alleged “leak”, and his indication that he would seek an explanation from the Chairman.

 

Mr. Matthew Roberts has made much, in justification of his ready acceptance of the Government representatives’ proposal that the Committee’s proceedings should end, and a report submitted to the Governor General without the concurrence of the Opposition representatives, of the so-called leak to the Press. The intimation is that it was leaked from the Opposition side. Never mind that few in this country, given their record of public service, would doubt the integrity and commitment to proper public policy conduct of Mr. St Clair Daniel, former Speaker of the House, and Mr. Darius Charlemange, former Permanent Secretary.

 

Yet, the Mirror (the newspaper to which the document was allegedly leaked) has stated in an Editorial in its issue of June 30, that: