Posted on

‘Vote No’ vindicated – DRP president

‘Vote No’ vindicated – DRP president


Thur April 17, 2014

by Anesia Baptiste

Since November 25th 2009, I have heard politicians of the “vote yes” side of the debate pronounce on how the people rejected good things and that they are on the wrong side of history and such like. Often their speech is one that clearly shows lack of respect for the people’s freedom of choice and a sort of continual despising of those who voted against the bill.{{more}} I have listened to them obscure the issues, giving the impression that there were no legitimate reasons for voting no and essentially telling only one side of the story. Here is a reminder about a certain aspect of the debate at that time, which any person reflecting on the matter must never forget. I am especially made to reflect on it at this time because of a certain article I read today about the constitution reform consultation process currently underway in Grenada.

When we had arrived at the juncture where we began to discuss the method of referendum and voting, I remember highlighting the constitutional provision which revealed to me that the voting could be done on a subject by subject basis. Section 38 of the 1979 Constitution of our land – which deals with the alteration of the constitution – did not hinder the government from implementing such a process of voting. In fact, it indicates that the vote on the referendum was to be done “in accordance with procedures as may be prescribed by Parliament for the purposes of the referendum.” I introduced this point to a radio panel discussion on WEFM one Sunday afternoon. There was a lawyer on the panel who, in answer to my question on the section, admitted to me that section 38 did indeed permit the government to choose such a method, if it so desired. However, the arguments which later followed against such a “subject by subject” voting said it would be too long a process and would waste time and money.

I wrote an article for my then weekly column in THE NEWS newspaper called “Persistent Scrutiny” and in it I addressed this matter in a piece dated 5th May, 2009 and entitled “Constitution Reform or Deform?” I argued that it was against freedom of choice to, as it were, force the people to vote yes to everything, even against their consciences. I also indicated that if the opportunity to vote yes or no to different issues was not granted, that I would vote no to the document as a whole. Alas, November 25th, 2009 came and 13 out of 15 constituencies voted NO to the constitution bill 2009.

We who voted no are blamed for the failure of a good process, but one man’s words today should ring in their ears now. His name is Dr Francis Alexis, Grenadian constitutional lawyer, who was head of the drafting committee in our constitution reform exercise. He is currently engaged today in Grenada’s constitution reform process. In an article called “Dr Alexis talks about constitution reform,” published online in The New Today on 6th April, 2014, Dr Alexis is cited with some wisdom he clearly learnt from the failure to heed the good proposal of vote by subject in the Vincentian constitution reform experience. Consider the following extract from the article very carefully, with emphasis supplied:

“Dr Alexis told the New Today that after due consideration is given to the suggestions made by the public and recommendations are made to the government based on the wide-ranging consultations, seven bills will be presented for vote by the public.

He said this was agreed upon, based on lessons learnt while in neighbouring St Vincent and the Grenadines, in which the Ralph Gonsalves government suffered a defeat in the referendum held on Constitutional Reform.

‘There’s a risk that one person might vote against the whole package because he/she might feel strongly about something in there, so what we are proposing to do is have a number of bills, separate bills so that people will have a choice if they want to vote for going to CCJ – we will have a bill for that – if you want to have a bill on recall of members of Parliament there might be a bill on that although that might be mixed up with other bills,’ he added.

‘Controversial subjects like the make-up of Parliament, whether you going to go republic it would be wise not to entangle these issues with non-controversial issues. Let (not) the non-controversial issues suffer from the controversy affecting other bills and everywhere that we go most people think that’s a good idea. We’re going to have separate bills for the people to have choices, the people are saying that makes a lot of sense,’ he said.”

What a lesson we clearly taught Dr Alexis and one he has chosen to learn from, as he encourages respect for his people’s choice (Grenadians) in such an important exercise. This issue raised was my personal contribution, totally apart from any political party association here. It was the people’s voice like my own that championed this point and my writing of the past is there to prove it.

It is time for the seemingly eternally vexed vote yes supporters who, in public speech reflecting on this matter, never seem interested in acknowledging their faults in the process, to start respecting the freedom of choice of our people and start representing the issue correctly, if they can at all maturely do so. We voted No for good reasons, including the fact that we really were not given the choice to vote yes freely to what we wanted and no freely to what we did not want. At least Grenada seems to be learning and under the circumstances, I am glad we voted NO.

Persistent Scrutiny

Anesia Baptiste

Founder & Leader


Republican Party