Electoral Reform Secretariat
Church Street
Basseterre
St. Kitts


BIRMINGHAM RESIDENTS PATENTLY INTERESTED IN ELECTORAL REFORM PROCESS, SUBMIT INTERESTING RECOMMENDATIONS TO ERCC

Birmingham, United Kingdom (October 20, 2006): It was a lively night at the Afro Caribbean Millennium Centre.

Thirty-seven people engaged the Electoral Reform Consultative Committee (ERCC) delegation to the United Kingdom in spirited discussion for more than two hours last night.

ERCC members Elvin Bailey, Clifford Thomas, and Clement “Bouncin” Williams hardly had to prod meeting attendees with questions and scenarios, which is sometimes done in the hopes of extracting substantive contributions.

The ERCC asked many questions of the audience, but that was mainly because the crowd – which was patently interested in the electoral reform process back home – piqued the committee’s interest and whetted its desire for more of their invaluable input. The calibre of their input was second to none in the consultations held in the United Kingdom so far.

Mr. Thomas, who chaired the meeting, said in his opening remarks that, “What we ask of you tonight is to present to us your ideas and suggestions, which will move this process forward and allow us to make whatever changes where we find shortcomings in the electoral process.”

He added, “There are certain areas that are detailed in the [St. Kitts and Nevis Electoral Reform] White Paper and also on page 12 in this booklet [the Report of the Commonwealth Assessment Mission on Electoral Reform in St. Kitts and Nevis], but we are not limited to these concerns. Those of you who have experienced the process would no doubt have areas of your own, which you want to put forward.”

The level of participation was active; attendees refused to be limited by any ignorance on their part so before any recommendations came forth, they asked questions of the ERCC.

They asked about the process that children born in England to overseas Nationals have to undergo to become citizens of St. Kitts and Nevis [Mr. Bailey: “There’s an administrative process that you have to go through, which involves producing evidence of lineage, pictures, medical, and some cost, and once all conditions are met then you are issued with a Certificate of Citizenship signed by the Prime Minister that entitles you to fully participate in all of the processes in St. Kitts and Nevis…your spouse also has an entitlement to register to become a citizen.”]; about whether Commonwealth citizens are removed from the voters’ list upon leaving the Federation to take up residency somewhere else [Mr. Thomas: At the moment, there’s no legal provision for their names to be removed.], and about the process of removing dead people from the list.

One man asked, “Someone who is deceased, when do their names come off the list as well?”

Mr. Thomas replied, “Someone makes an objection to that name on the basis of that person being deceased and presents certificates and so on to substantiate...”

The man interjected, “So that name only comes off when somebody actually objects to that name?”

“That’s correct,” said Mr. Thomas.

“So there’s no link,” asked the man, “to the Registry of the Deaths to the electoral…?”

Mr. Thomas interjected, “At the moment, there is none.” He added, “Do you want to make a suggestion?”

The man continued, “Is that [suggestion] in the White Paper, that when someone registers a death that information goes on to the electoral committee?”

“If you wish to make a suggestion to that effect, we can accept that suggestion,” Mr. Thomas said.

Another man joined this discussion, “What happens if someone in England dies and is entitled to vote in St. Kitts and Nevis? Doesn’t the information go down to the West Indies?”

“No,” answered Mr. Thomas. “It does not happen automatically at the moment. Again, someone has to make an objection, and then substantiate.”

The man remarked, “Surely information should be shared. Say if you’ve committed a crime, information flows so why can’t it flow for information of deaths or birth, or anything like that? That would be able to stop this business of double voting.”

“Yes, indeed,” said Mr. Thomas.

Recommendations flowed; such as provisions should be made for overseas Nationals to vote in different ways, such as by post or proxy, through the High Commission in London, and there should be a specific voters’ I.D. with the holder’s unique serial number, photograph, and birth date, whereas an opposing view was that - to sidestep the issue of cost - St. Kitts and Nevis should rely on existing identification documents, such as birth certificates, passports, and social security cards. There was also a suggestion that the final voters’ list should be published at least five days before polling day.

With regard to the latter recommendation, Mr. Williams said, “Some of the times it [the voters’ list] comes out the evening before.” Norma Maynard, who forwarded the suggestion concerning the publication of the voters’ list, said, “That will mean the onus is on me to make sure that my name is on that list every time it comes out up to and before that five days before it’s called.” A man suggested that the list should be published one month before elections.

Other recommendations were that overseas Nationals should meet certain criteria, which would demonstrate their interest and ties to the Federation before they are allowed to vote; overseas Nationals should have the option of registering to vote through an agency affiliated with St. Kitts and Nevis abroad - such as the High Commission - rather than being confined to the current procedure that only permits registration at an electoral office back home, and an opposing view was that registration should be held only on St. Kitts and Nevis soil because overseas Nationals who are truly interested in voting in its elections will make the journey home to register, but they should have the option of voting by post if they cannot get home for an election. There was also a suggestion that Internet voting should be introduced.

Another recommendation was that someone back home should register in the Constituency where she or he lives at present. A man said, “You’re choosing someone to represent you in Parliament and I think that person who’s representing you in Parliament should be representing your area. He’s the person who’s going to be looking after your roads and water, whatever you need and your utilities coming to that area. He’s going to be speaking for you.”

Generally, the crowd proposed that the electoral system should facilitate more and more women to speak for women's interests on the political platform.

One woman said that political parties should let their female candidates run in the “safe seats” to prove that “they are doing something to promote the ladies in the party.”

A man responded cheekily, “What is a safer seat for a woman than to have women voters?” He said this in reference to the fact that the majority of voters in St. Kitts and Nevis are women.

Later in the meeting, Norma Maynard said, “It’s an educational change that we need to carry out in St. Kitts and Nevis. You made a good point; it’s women who vote women out. We need to educate women and have things in place to support those women.”

More recommendations were that state media should provide equal time for political parties. With regard to access to state media coverage, they pointed out that the Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis must be in a special category because essentially he “wears two hats.”

A man said, “There’s Denzil Douglas the Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis who is steering St. Kitts and Nevis in a particular direction, and there’s Denzil Douglas the leader of the [St. Kitts-Nevis] Labour Party. So if he’s coming on [the state media] to talk about St. Kitts and Nevis progressing and going into whatever he’s coming to talk about that is fine, but if he’s coming to talk about his party's policies it’s a different matter…If he’s coming on as the Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis, he needs to address the people as the Prime Minister of St. Kitts-Nevis, not address the people as the Labour Party leader.”

A woman added to this argument, “I think it’s the context in which he’s addressing the nation. Once election is there – I believe you said 18 days or something – there should be a vetting of what he actually puts across in the media. So if it is in reaction to a bomb hitting Nevis then it is appropriate for him to go in the media. However, if it is with regard to electioneering he should be restricted in the same way that the other parties are restricted. It’s the context.”

A man implied that the context in which the Electoral Reform Consultative Committee (ERCC) presents its report shall ultimately determine whether the legislation enacted for the St. Kitts and Nevis Electoral Reform Exercise will attain acceptance by the general public.

He asked, “Can I make a suggestion that the report be made public before it is presented, and before anything is implemented that you have some sort of feedback from the public rather than you have a report that gets submitted without the public saying no or yeah to what is being said?”

“We’ll make a note of that,” Mr. Thomas replied.

The ERCC will be accepting submissions from stakeholders in the St. Kitts and Nevis Electoral Reform Exercise up to November 6. Contact details are listed in the Contact Us section of this Web site.







Contact: Valencia Grant (869-762-6177)