The late Dr Eric Eustace Williams, Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister and political mathematician of infamy that reformulated one from ten is zero, foreshadowing the collapse of the Federation, is also well known for his book Capitalism and Slavery. While there has been, at least within my circle of friends and associates, some debate about whether Capitalism and Slavery represented different developmental epochs along the spectrum of economic underdevelopment of the region, some speculated why the book was not titled “Slavery to Capitalism”—suggesting there may have been a motive other than profit during slavery.
Admittedly, these conversations were all ironically inspired and spurred on by the golden nectar by-product of plantation slavery, a truly celebration-worthy mixture for which my husband deserves credit. Now I am not discounting the discussions simply because the golden (sometimes opaque) nectar was consumed in copious quantities. It is, however unfortunately, a topic seldomly discussed honestly or debated. After all, Dr Williams’s book is a rewrite of his thesis which he would not have passed had the truth of his book not been carefully massaged so as not to offend the fragile sensibilities of his British supervisors and examiners.
These discussions got me thinking about and trying to answer the question: Have things changed? Over half a century on from Capitalism and Slavery, what’s different? We’ve heard of colonialism and neo-colonialism, debt traps, and the rule of law that benefits the shapers of the law handed down to us.
In 1979 we gained Independence from Britain, then quickly exchanged said independence for alliances that presumably would benefit us. The dichotomy of the Cold War was replaced by another ‘war’ that plays out here in Saint Lucia between mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC). Speculation is rife that the threat of debt from DHS is a consequence of that struggle, but this will not be addressed here. So, what has been achieved since emancipation to independence, and post-independence? Have I answered that question by inadvertently stating little to nothing, other than the realisation that independence and freedom are literally the opium of the masses?
On 31 July I joined relatives in Dennery to witness and participate in the celebration of the revolutionary spirit and life of Pétronille Dwine. The ceremony was supposed to commence at 4pm. The first official guests to arrive, at 3:30, were some members of the Taiwanese delegation. It was absolutely brilliant that Taiwan would celebrate Emancipation with Saint Lucia. But the three officials felt it fitting to draw back, before the Prime Minister’s official act, the black curtains that promised surprised and drama. Equally telling was the absence of any representative of the UK Government.
In recognition of the Queen’s anniversary on the throne, the UK dispatched a little-known member of the royal family to Saint Lucia (at local taxpayer expense) and to “honour” our Prime Minister with the widely ridiculed photo of the Prince and his spouse. The international community had much fun at the expense of the royal visitors but I believe the joke was on the people of Saint Lucia for submitting to such disrespect. Then again, when we are still mentally enslaved, as Robert Nestor Marley famously observed, such embarrassing incidents are bound to continue.
The disrespect for Saint Lucia’s Prime Minister continued. The Dennery event started 75 minutes late. All of his ministers arrived after him. The Deputy Prime Minister Ernest Hilaire was late. Moses Jn Baptiste was late. Shawn Edwards strolled in long after them.
But back to the UK: former British Prime Minister David Cameron, when he visited Jamaica, advised the nation in a public address to get over and move on from slavery. I would think the UK government would stand upon the laurels of leading the revolutionary spirit of William Wilberforce that championed the end of the slave trade and, eventually, slavery in 1834. Factually they were the first European power to lead in this manner. Something to be proud about. But on matters of historic importance to Saint Lucia, silence and a demonstrated lack of interest in our celebrations. I guess, there is more than one way to say “get over slavery, no reparations.” They attempt to dictate morality to us, and we continue to defer to their judicial dictates by our reluctance to embrace the CCJ. Why shouldn’t they disrespect us when we disrespect ourselves and those we elevate to our leadership?
Alas that same leadership disrespects us, the people they are supposed to elevate, protect and nurture for the benefit of the whole. Corruption continues to be cultural in Saint Lucia, as Sir Louis Blom-Cooper had observed in 1998. The Deputy Prime Minister openly claims he has the power of the government behind him to pursue personal vendettas. His contributions to the House are certainly so aligned.
His recent pronouncements about the cost of maintaining police dogs in crime-ridden Saint Lucia were, to say the very least, petty. If truly problematic, then with the aforementioned power of the government behind you, just do something positive about the canines. Let’s not forget the appeal to the base to “protect the victory” at all cost, even if it means ignoring the government’s lapses and infelicities. I remain aghast by such a pronouncement and policy.
With the exception of the Speaker of the House, both political parties in the House and the wider population agree constitutional reform is necessary. Given the recently debated and discussed Firearms Act—a distraction from burgeoning crime—it introduced nothing new, other than an increase in fines and longer incarceration. If only the nation had reason to believe wrongdoers will be arrested and prosecuted.
Firearms imported, no one held accountable; a container of drugs turns up, no one is held accountable; a former government minister publicly accuses customs officials of corruption, no questions asked. Homicide after homicide is reported then evidently forgotten. The DPP promises prosecutions that never materialize. No one seems to care why. So, despite for the first time the attorney general sits in Parliament at the right hand of the Prime Minister, questionable legislation is passed that continues to mock the Constitution.
I am aware that there is palpable outrage regarding the legislation that affords police the right to stop and search motorists. Increasing the fine from $7,000 to $30,000 for failure to stop ignores the primary concern of the illegal firearm and prioritizes revenue collection. The message and conclusion offered here suggests: Allow the government to trample over your constitutional rights, or we fine you, or confine you behind the walls of Bordelais.
Actually, this makes perfect sense. The citizen will have to pay more than the fine to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation, so he might as well ignore that lawmakers are acting illegally and forget about rights under our Constitution.
We also have laws against noise pollution, littering and speed limits. But as I said, being brought to justice in Saint Lucia for a transgression is a rare occurrence, a concern only for the poorest of the poor and the disconnected. How often do our politicians on both sides of the divide refer to one another as criminals? Why are the allegations never followed up?
Why the righteous outrage, albeit late, towards the maintenance of Article 39 of the Firearms Act on our statute books? As stated, it is abundantly unconstitutional, and for an administration that campaigned on a promise to amend the Constitution, to be now championing unconstitutionality and the deprivation of liberty is appalling. The government’s idea of constitutional change represents a radical departure from the trappings of a progressive liberal democracy. Proof that despite things changing, they essentially remain the same. Or become abundantly worse.
I won’t bother citing several Articles of the Constitution that contradict Article 39 of the Firearms Act. Suffice it to say I would suggest reading under the heading of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Chapter 1 Article 1 (c) that provides for the “protection for his or her family life, his or her personal privacy, the privacy of his or her home and other property . . .” Chapter 1 Article 3(1)e that allows only with the establishment of “reasonable suspicion” for rights and liberty to be curtailed. The distinction and inclusion of the qualifier of “reasonable” is fundamentally significant as the Firearms Act only requires suspicion to violate someone’s rights. Acting merely on suspicion epitomizes arbitrary, and Chapter 1 Article 7 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution speaks to the protection from arbitrary search or entry. So, under what other contexts can mere suspicion suspend the protections of the Constitution?
None! At least none that is consistent with our Constitution. To get a judge to approve a search warrant or order, more than mere suspicion is required. Article 39 of the Firearms Act obviates the need for scrutiny and constitutional protections as guaranteed when a search warrant is sought through the court. One may argue, and conveniently assume that reasonable is implied, but why not state it when the qualifier of “reasonable” is used in other contexts? Another argument is that firearms automatically denotes exigency. While the assumption of “exigent circumstances” is widely understood within the context of law, a comparative analysis tells us that to satisfy the requirement of exigency that in turn justifies a search, detention and the deprivation of liberty, a more determinative qualifier than mere suspicion is required.
In the U.S. the “Clear-View Doctrine” applies in this regard— that is, criminal activity is known and not merely suspected. The legislation appears deficient, and said deficiency will again lead to unconstitutional actions on the part of the police. The unfortunate beneficiaries will be the motoring public.
Apologies for sounding like a “Constitution Park lawyer”—no pun intended. But I leave you with these thoughts. Our friends show us no respect, by telling us to merely get over what they did to our ancestors while they continue to disrespect us as a people. We in turn show ourselves and our leaders no respect, we prioritize personal over national, and continue to endorse corruption, at least tacitly. I recall the words of U.S. President Barack Obama: “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”
I seriously doubt Obama’s words apply in the context of Saint Lucia and assume rather with the political kickball going on, we adhere to a Churchillian understanding of change that alleges “to improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” Only an apocryphal delusion of greatness would allow us as a people to assume constant change is our solution to perfection, yet our actions suggest the words of Churchill guide our political psychosis. Will the next election be more change for change sake? A refocus of our understanding of what needs to change is clearly evident. Should we be the ones to change? Who will be the next Pétronille Dwine to lead the defiance of wrong that is being perpetrated upon us towards change? Whomever it is, I pray martyrdom is not a prerequisite.
Editor’s Note: The author has chosen to use a nom du plume.