The pending election in Antigua and Barbuda is becoming more and more curious as the Baldwin Spencer administration enters the 62nd month of a term that is normally scheduled to last 60 months. It should be unnecessary to repeat the legal technicality associated with this type of extended stay to a largely Barbadian readership since we also endured a 61-month Stuart administration.
This type of “strategy” encroaches on a discretionary allotment of time that the framing fathers presumably felt was necessary in the event of unforeseen circumstances such as a war or outbreak of small pox. It now appears as though Stuart’s “strategy” is being replicated in Antigua and Barbuda as Spencer seeks also to defy the odds which currently appear to be stacked against him.
Those paying attention to this author’s comments will note that in anticipation of the 2013 election, I consistently argued that it was unwise for Stuart to exploit this loophole and presented evidence that longer terms have historically not ended in success for the incumbent.
It was, therefore, interesting to hear the former general secretary of the DLP comment on Antigua’s Observer Radio last week that Stuart’s strategy was both deliberate and “wise” as his “resounding” victory demonstrated.
Notwithstanding, I would again venture the argument that to surrender the strategic advantage of an “early” election in Antigua and Barbuda is most unwise and the evidence in their case is even more compelling.
Antigua and Barbuda has historically had one “late” election and this was in 1971. Curiously, it was the first and only election VC Bird ever lost, which should be a compelling statistic to the politically wise. However, one must equally acknowledge the greater wisdom of the Stuart/Spencer strategy.
Antigua’s last election was held on March 12, 2009; however, court action against three of the MPs suggested the prudence of Parliament not sitting until April 26 in that year which meant that its natural life expired yesterday and the Prime Minister now has 90 days within which to call an election.
Spencer claims to have been ready for some time but has been holding off out of deference to the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court which has been considering two relevant cases. The history is complex but essentially the UPP wishes to change the boundaries and also the basis on which the electoral list is compiled and naturally the ABLP objects.
The court has been considering the issue and Spencer appears to believe that the court has a responsibility to adjudicate on the matter in good time for him to call the election.
There is perhaps good logic to Spencer’s arguments but I am more inclined towards a logic that suggests that Spencer is sufficiently aware to anticipate the ABLP’s court challenge and should therefore have completed his business in good time to allow the implementation of his new arrangements.
The Antigua and Barbuda laws restrict any government from making alterations to the boundaries within two years of an election; however, three more years have elapsed since then. It can therefore be argued that the matters currently on the table should have been placed there several years ago, which would appear to be a considerably more prudent option than to attempt to force the hands of justice to move more swiftly.
History aside, the situation as it stands is that those judgements will be delivered tomorrow, while Parliament was dissolved yesterday and in anticipation Spencer indicated on Thursday last that he would allow Parliament to dissolve naturally and communicate his decision on the election date after the judgements were delivered. There were, however, two curious aspects of his statement and the first of these was his obvious and seminal criticism of the court.
Seldom has a Caribbean leader been so bold as to say “it is not for me to speculate or to impute any motive on the part of the court” to which he is subject, especially as we all understand the colloquial interpretation of such a statement. As much as the office of Prime Minister is insulated from the wrath of most courts, nothing further is likely to come of this. It would, however, be most unfortunate if this type of comment becomes fashionable across the region.
The second and more interesting issue that arose from the Prime Minister’s statement is his argument that the court has effectively prevented his government from giving effect to the new boundaries because the law requires that such an order be assented to by the Governor General before the dissolution of Parliament which would now be impossible.
This argument arises from a legal technicality that is too complex to engage in this forum. However, it is significant that this scenario arose from an agreement between the government and opposition that the boundaries legislation not be passed to the Governor General for signature until the court had made its opinion known.
One presumes that both sets of lawyers were aware of this possibility if the court had “taken its time” and one therefore wonders why the government allowed itself to be “cornered” in this way.
While I would be among the first to argue that our courts are too slow to deliver justice, I would also argue that no prime minister who understands this reality should place his fate in the hands of any court, even where he has been reported to have asked that court to “hurry up”. If alternatively the prime minster has unwittingly found himself in this position, it would mean that he was “set up” by the opposition which is an unflattering reflection on his political savvy.
In effect therefore the Spencer administration now stands on the “back porch” of a record term in office and faces an election which it will be forced to call in much the same way it was forced to dissolve Parliament and one wonders why any leader would so willingly surrender the most valuable power in his arsenal which is the unfettered right to call an election at the time of his choosing.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).