Searchlight welcomes qualification change

SEARCHLIGHT welcomes the change in the eligibility status of public officers to contest general elections unanimously approved by the House of Assembly on October 29, two weeks ago. The change in the law which previously barred public officers from contesting general elections was long overdue and seemingly has the support of the general public, judging not only by the House vote, but also by public reaction to it.

In fact, the change is one which was the subject of public discussion for more than four decades now. It became a bone of contention in the late seventies when it became likely that a number of young, educated public officers were likely to opt to challenge the old established political parties at the polls. However, under the prevailing legislation they would have had to resign from the public service in order to do so.

This became a political issue of the day but there did not seem to be the gumption among the parties then represented in government to promote such a change.

In addition, it must be remembered that St Vincent was then still a British colony. The youthful opposition party of the time, the United Peoples Movement (UPM) had actually made a manifesto commitment in that regard, but that died with the defeat of that party in the December, 1979 elections.

The matter remained one outside the concerns of the old parties which would only look at it through tinted lens, partisan ones at that. It resurfaced, ironically during the administration of one of the proponents of such a change, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves. In 2009, the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) fielded three candidates who were in government employment but had to resign in order to contest. All three lost but sought to re-enter the government service.

In the meantime, the governing Unity Labour Party (ULP) had signed an agreement with the SVG Teachers Union which encompassed the right of most categories of public servants to contest general elections without jeopardizing their employment rights. The NDP promptly picked a political battle over the employment of the three defeated candidates, calling for their reinstatement. It even raised the Government-SVGTU agreement as a justification.

But, as so often happens here, rather than taking a dispassionate and principled stand, the response of the government was that the agreement with the Teachers’ Union was only “aspirational” and again, partisan politics took the upper hand. In the process, the once cooperative relationship between the Government and the SVGTU took a downward dive, with the NDP fanning the flames.

It could almost be seen as the forerunner to the bitter ongoing battle over public servants who fell foul of COVID-19 regulations governing employment in the public service.

Can we now, after the unanimous House vote, begin to hope for a more mature approach to public policy on such matters, including dialogue on longstanding irritants? Can our Parliamentarians and parliamentary parties now begin, Even in this relatively narrow space, to put the good of the country and its people before partisan political interests in which one only supports measures when they appear to suit one’s immediate political fortunes? Is that not what “Put your country before your party” is supposed to mean?