COMMENTARY: Dominica electoral reform, the consultative process

Two main points remained with me following Dominica’s Electoral Reform Excursion:

1. Members of the Dominica Electoral Commissions were mere spectators throughout, and 2. The media reported on rather than covering the event. I explain why both observations are a bit worrisome in my conclusions, so if you prefer not to read through (or view) the entire content of this article, please proceed to the end. If you decide to read (or view) along, let me say from the onset that this article is a review of the Dominica Electoral Reform consultative process, so the politics surrounding the process is omitted from my analysis. This is simply an analysis of the consultative process.

The casual observer could argue that there was widespread consultation on electoral reform and that this matter should be put to rest with the enactment of Dominica’s pending new elections’ laws. In fact, this was the thesis that was used by the Hon. Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit in his pre-consultation hubris. But is this issue of electoral reform really put to rest?

Prime Minister Skerrit is mentioned here because he stood out as the major player during the DER forum. It would not surprise me at all if someone thinks that he even directed the entire thing. My inclusion of the thesis and mention of the Hon Prime Minister should be seen as an unavoidable part of this analysis, so if this seems political, this article probably cannot avoid the politics. But I will try.

Electoral reform is a tool used by thriving democracies to make elections fairer, and all parties within those democracies are sufficiently represented in the process. It is also the norm for there to be a neutral arbiter in control of such reform functions, and in Dominica’s case, the most appropriate arbiter would have been the independent Dominica Electoral Commission. This was not the case, as members of the commission were mere spectators to the process. There was also a conspicuous absence of the office of the Chief Elections Officer. Instead, however, I witnessed an elaborate network of officials, affiliates, surrogates, supporters, apologists, patrons, partners and close associates of the ruling regime performing key functions at the consultations.

Elements and operatives of the electoral machinery of the majority faction in Dominica’s government branded the reform process. From the conference chair to the key contributors who seemed to have been deliberately positioned and/or planted (with ease of access to the conferences), the executioners of rebuttals, the defenders of the incumbent’s wishes and positions, the detractors and – yes – the closers. This Dominica Electoral Reform consultative exercise was carefully staged and expertly marshalled by an elite team of actors. This is what I observed.

While there was consultation, the consultations overwhelmingly reflected the wishes of one group over all others. The fear in this is that the one-sidedness that had characterized the process may soon become ‘the law of the land,’ and when this happens, one-sidedness, one political main interest, one group, and some may say that the will, ambitions, and legacy of one man will receive complete and biased protection on of the law. It is one thing to be able to operate along the penumbra of the law to manufacture electoral results, but it is another thing when one-sided advantage becomes the law. From the look of things, the Dominica Electoral Reform process and consultations have paved the way for the legalization of vexing and questionable irregularities in Dominica’s electoral system and processes. The possible advantage for the incumbent will certainly pose grave problems for electoral fairness in future elections.

Representatives of organizations, some of which had previously observed Dominica’s electoral process and had clamored for reform to be done, also observed the consultative exercises. This means that they saw – first-hand – what I saw and should provide a summary of their observation sometime in the future. I await with bated breath, especially since such reviews are expected to be unbiased and fair. Like me, I hope the overseas observers would have seen that the consultative process of Dominica’s electoral reform possessed functional markings of fairness, but its underpinnings suggest that the process was fundamentally fixed to favor the dominant incumbent views.

It is my view as well that the reform process was fluent and unimpeded. The operation was businesslike, it seemed fair, people were relatively free to express their views, the major geographical districts were covered, key sectors of the Dominican society were invited to contribute, the overseas Dominicans were granted multiple opportunities to participate, sessions were broadcast via traditional and social media for all to see; the spectacle of reform permeated important places and spaces.

While all the aforementioned are true, the process, in all actuality, funneled into the interest of one group as has been previously observed. The general sense of goodwill which was observed throughout the consultative process was shrouded in semantics and grandstanding. The reform process was sophisticatedly subtle, with an obvious imposing presence of the mechanisms of state that steered advantage towards a particular direction. The process was carried out by people of influence in a low-pressure manner with high-stake antics geared at gaining dominion over the entire system.

The process allowed for a quiet disquiet that would drown out opposing narratives and advance the preferred views that were offered by the mainstream Dominica Electoral Reform narratives. The process was tactical, strategic, and clever (not too clever at times) which allowed for the dismissal and/or purging of any semblance of resistance (I can
attest to that; I personally experienced it). Experts and professionals were deployed and remained at the ready, throughout the process, to redirect the outlier narratives. Everything that needed to be challenged was challenged, and the record will show that one message was louder than any other message; that of the incumbent power holders.

The incumbency was the overwhelming winner of the Dominica Electoral Reform consultative process. Let me reiterate that the entire reform process was a well-orchestrated and expertly executed exercise, which threw cold water in the face of any opposition pushback, retaliation, and/or protest. It is interesting to note, however, that the electoral reform, which is the most fundamental pillar of election systems and one of the leading tenets of healthy democracy, generally brings sides together. This Dominica Electoral Reform consultative exercise didn’t; it tore the citizens of Dominica further apart. Because of the ‘no-politics’ pledge of this essay, I will not cite where, when, and how electoral reform became a party-political matter.

I will also not elaborate on the timing, symbolism, and strategic partisan posturing in the nomination of Kalinago citizen Sylvanie Burton, (currently, Her Excellency the President of Dominica), as his presidential candidate to replace His Excellency, Mr. Charles Angelo Savarin (then President) as Dominica’s President. This happened on the eve of the Kalinago Territory District consultation, and it can be assumed that deliberate thought went into this decision and declaration.

With that said, I revisit the opening points of this article: 1. Members of the Dominica Electoral Commissions were mere spectators throughout, and 2. The media reported on, rather than covering the event. The point has been made on point 1 throughout the article, but let me surmise by saying that the Dominica Electoral Reform consultative process lacked independence and neutrality. This lacking may hamper the integrity of the final product, but I would love to be wrong when the final chapter is written. When it comes to point 2, this is, to me, the biggest letdown of the entire process.

The absence of the media spoke volumes. Of course, the media was present, but it generally served the interest of the election power brokers and controllers; not that of the people. I say so because of the lack of critical media analysis that was conducted in the process. I have not seen any serious effort made by the ‘independent media’ to dissect the content coming from the reform events and consultative exercises. It is one thing to report on, and cover the news; critical content analysis is another.

The observations suggest that the people remain at the mercy of the parties, and it is the party that messages (or messaged) the best, or can control the narrative, that ultimately wins. The consultative phase of Dominica’s Electoral Reform was a win for the incumbent Dominica Labour Party (DLP), but this does not have to be the way it ends. The people may eventually have their say. The biggest manifestation of reform and successful expressions of protest will be delivered at the polls, or so I hope. If not, we had better brace for a rocky rest of the journey, and turbulent landing of the DLP at the end of this political journey which began in 2000. And this journey will come to an inevitable end.

May the spirit of real unity, cooperation, and progress prevail in this time of great doubt about our country’s future.