#BTColumn – Reflections on Dominica’s snap elections and its boycott by the United Workers Party of Dominica

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

By Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph 

While not an ardent supporter of the inordinate powers of the Prime Minister to call a general election long before its constitutional due date, the recent decision by the Dominica United Workers Party (UWP) to not contest the elections is an equally alarming sign for democracy. They have also asked the President to revoke the election call by the Prime Minister. The UWP cites that the lack of a clean voters list reflecting the actual number of people who can legally vote and the lack of National ID cards available to legitimate voters are the main propositions upon which they have mounted their boycott. 

It is no secret that the power to call a snap election is an excessive power which goes against the tenets of free, fair and integrity-based democratic elections. The prerogative of ringing the bell at one’s whims is essentially aimed at providing an unfair advantage to the governing party when they believe that they have the upper hand. It is tantamount to an elective dictatorship and perhaps is one of the reasons why CLR James has argued that the Caribbean should not take too seriously its claims of being a democratic society beyond, free, fair and integrity-based elections, separation of powers and other features of liberal democracies. He felt that our reflective instinct was towards crude authoritarianism on the part of the leadership, and was either cowed obedience or naked rebellion. Those habits were formed in the harsh school of plantation slavery and the current age demands the careful nurturing of new democratic instincts. CLR James may have been too generous to classify our liberal democracies as free, fair and integrity based, especially when one interrogates the prime minister’s powers. 

Snap elections continue to create high levels of political instability because of the uncertainty surrounding elections. Time supposed to be spent governing is spent strategizing, as we are never aware of where the political party stops and the government begins. Some have argued however, that the ability to call the election at any time has given our political system flexibility, and that we do not have to be burdened with unpopular leaders for extended periods. This is on the assumption that these leaders can recognise that it may be time to exit the political scene. However, some have argued that it provides us with the room to cater for emergencies. As we’ve come to realise, this ability to call the elections when one believes that the chips are in one’s favour, has not stopped governments from falling when the time has come, especially when people ‘fed up.’ We must admit, that it wreaks havoc because democratic elections must be fair to all parties who wish to contest the election and undue notice and opportunity cannot exist in an environment such as this. The basis of free, fair and integrity-based elections must be that all parties are on the same footing as the incumbent. Therefore, the call for fixed date for elections must continue within our Commonwealth Caribbean, with some deference given to the Prime Minister and the House to cater for emergencies. 

Amidst all of the above however, the boycotting of the United Workers Party does nothing to reduce or counter this prerogative power. If anything, it exposes the political party, not for an adoration of its philosophical stance about ‘possible’ electoral fraud, but of its unpreparedness to govern. This has continued to put in sharp focus, that while opposition parties may not have the financial wherewithal and the technical resources to improve their structures during opposition periods, they must spend the time building their intellectual capacity. They must always be ready to provide an alternative to the present government by imbuing citizens with confidence that should they take the helm they will be ready to govern. The problem of opposition politics within the Commonwealth Caribbean, which the UWP in Dominica has not seem to learn as yet, is that they must always be ready to govern and that election planning should not commence during the latter two years of the government cycle, especially when one is aware of the prerogative power of the Prime Minister. This however is not a new phenomenon as the PNP in Jamacia in 1983 boycotted the election for similar reasons handing the government to Prime Minister Seaga. The question which was the question then, is whether people, both party members and citizens support this or whether this is a view espoused strictly by the political party elites, and what role will the UWP play in the new governance period by Prime Minister Skerritt. Will they spend the upcoming five years articulating that the elections were fraudulent, whether it was or not, or will they put their house in order? This boycotting will only be effective if the United Workers Party can spend the following years mobilising ordinary people to mount anti- governmental stances. 

Their decision to not contest the upcoming general elections also shows their inability to create the proper structures necessary to ensure the imbuing of fresh blood and newness within their political party, which is necessary to remain relevant. Opposition parties must not be ambivalent and not be up for the political challenge of mobilising people to replace the ‘sit tight’ political leader who may not find favour with the people, if only they have a better option presented to them. However, they must submit themselves to the process if they are to become politically relevant and effective. 

All of this is not to suggest that their claims upon which they have premised their boycott, are invalid, as the CCJ decision is illustrative of major electoral issues which need to be addressed in the Commonwealth of Dominica. The UWP is correct, however, that a key component of free, fair and integrity-based elections must be the presence of an updated voters list which is verifiable and reflective of the actual eligible voting population within the country. Not only does it provide an avenue for pre and post electoral analysis, but it provides a level of transparency required for democratic elections. The story of the ‘unclean’ voters list is however not a new phenomenon within the Caribbean and is indicative of societies which do not prioritise democratic benchmarks until the election period has arrived. These ‘unclean’ lists provide the avenue for overseas voting among many other phenomena which may not be in conformity with democratic standards or our local electoral laws. 

The UWP calls therefore should be taken seriously and probing questions should be asked by the people of Dominica to their leadership about why for decades these issues have not been resolved. It would be interesting to see whether an international electoral observer mission will be invited to oversee the election procedure wherein a more updated version of the electoral issues will be put to rest. 

The UWP calls however for the President of the Commonwealth of Dominica to revoke the calling of elections is also indicative of a political party which is philosophically operating outside of the margins of the political rules, as they must be quite aware of the conventions of Westminster where the Prime Minister’s decree in relation to the calling of an election is not reviewable by the President. When the Constitution spoke of ‘advising’ the President, it did not contemplate that the President would ever be able to act against the advice given by the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament. Any calls for reviewing of these constitutional norms must be a conversation spearheaded by the Dominican people in their new thrust of constitutional reform of which the people must demand if we are to take ourselves seriously as a democracy. 

In the end, whether or not one supports a fixed date for elections for electoral certainty and for elections to be free, fair and integrity-based, we can also agree that boycotting the elections cannot be deemed as an electorally wise decision and only exposes the opposition as being unprepared. What will become of the UWP?