Trying to make sense of the Referendum

With the Referendum now over, there are surely lots of post-mortems and discussions reflecting not only on the results but also the whole process, all in an effort to make sense of it and to look at the implications. One thing most commentators seem to have got wrong is the turnout of voters on November 25. If this is wrong then some of the conclusions we draw are also likely to be wrong.{{more}} Rickey Singh, for instance, in last weekend’s Nation newspaper wrote, “Approximately 46, 239 voters of the eligible 97,751 electorate did not bother to cast their ballots, a significant percentage said to be traditional ULP supporters.” Prime Minister Gonsalves as quoted by Kenton Chance in I Witness -News made much of the apathy of ULP supporters really giving credence to Rickey’s point about a substantial number that failed to vote and no doubt assuming that they were ULP supporters. But let us look at this carefully.

St.Vincent and the Grenadines has a population of about 107,000. This is the figure we use although estimates from the Statistical Unit put the 2007 population at 100,237. But for the purpose of this argument, I use the larger figure, 107,000. It means clearly that there could not have been 97,000 persons eligible to vote. Prime Minister Gonsalves when he was handing out his goodies at Independence stated that 30,000 primary, secondary and post-secondary students were going to get EC$200. If we assume 2,800 students at the post-secondary level, that is mainly Community College students, that leaves us with 27,200 below the age of 18. When we take this away from the total population we are left with 79,800 but there are some other deductions to be made. The number of children in the 0- 4 age group in the year 2007 was 9,411 so let us conservatively put the under 5s at 9,800. This then takes us to 70,000. We have also to account for persons on the electoral list, that have died and those who have migrated but whose names would still be on the list. I am using another conservative number, putting it at 4,000. By my calculations the electoral list should not be more than 66,000 but I am going to use the 70,000 figure. This then presents us with a different kind of scenario for it means that 52, 133 persons voted out of an electorate of 70,000. This takes us to a 74.47 percent turnout. If my figures are correct it means that there was a massive turnout of voters. The target for the “Yes Supporters” was 66.7 percent of persons voting while the first objective of the proponents of the “no Vote” was to secure 33. 3 percent of the votes cast.

What therefore had so excited the population that 74 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote? Clearly it could not be the Constitution taken by its self. It was undoubtedly a combination of issues and factors. The campaign was indeed a political campaign with the Constitution being only one of the issues. But many of us had anticipated this. To have had the Referendum during the ‘silly period’ with elections constitutionally due in a little over a year was to have turned it into a traditional political campaign. I remember an advertisement for one of the Campaigns for those who were urging people to vote “Yes” stating “Transportation as usual”. What does this mean? It pointed to another traditional political rally. The Opposition on the other hand made no bones about using the Referendum to focus on the problems in the country. Some things played into their hands. The populace was bitter about the use of $4 million from the Consolidated Fund on the campaign given the serious economic problems the country is facing. The “Yes” Building as they called it was a reminder of what they considered extravagant and wasteful.

The Constitution was, definitely not the thing! I would venture to say that a majority of the electorate did not read the Constitution. The debate itself, if we care to call it so, was also hampered by the fact that many persons had never seen a copy of the current constitution much less read it. So there was no frame of comparison. Some of the criticisms made of the proposed constitution could also have been made of the existing one. Although both parties in the Referendum campaign had their initial targets in terms of percentage of the votes, there was obviously more to it than that for with an election campaign about to get into high gear, the target was obviously different. The proponents of the “Yes Campaign” must have known that it was going to be virtually impossible to secure the 66.7 percent target once the Opposition had left the embrace of the Constitutional Review Committee and opted to take a position against the proposed constitution. Were there therefore different objectives in mind? Many persons would suggest that they were testing the waters. Despite rhetoric to the contrary they will not take things for granted. It was certainly a wakeup call. The 55.67 percent vote that gave victory to the “No Campaigners” was a massive one and cannot just be dismissed by talking around it. This will however not automatically transform itself into victory in the up-coming elections but it reflects a high level of discontent in the country which can only be dismissed with dire consequences. One gets the sense that this marks the beginning of the campaign for the next general elections. What happens now to constitutional reform? Let us hope it remains on the table. The two major sides in the Campaign have agreed on some of the issues but disagree on others. Let us look at the proposals that have been voted on as a work in progress. My view was that the question we needed to ask ourselves was not if it is better than the one that currently exists. We need to get it right and build a consensus. There will never be agreement on every aspect of the Constitution but let us work on those areas over which there was disagreement and see what is possible.

A Short Note for Caspar

I am not going to waste valuable time responding to Caspar because it appears that he has been suffering from ‘senior moments’. I have been very consistent with what I stand for and do not bob and weave for political expediency. I am no lover of Monarchy and have never been. I am firmly behind the establishment of a Caribbean Court of Justice. I have been saying this all the time, so what is your point Caspar? I really believe you have been working too hard and need to take a rest.

Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian.