What was right about Opposition critiques
What was wise about the UWP was their questions on the cost of living, healthcare, crime, and violence; albeit it was not a compelling narrative, as evidenced by the election results, but the UWP suggested that the government kept the gas prices artificially high even when global and regional prices were falling and that this affected the cost of living for ordinary Saint Lucians.
Hidden in these details, though, particularly on the latter, was how the economic ecosystem of other countries may have caused lower prices, because it was offset by other taxes in other components of the economy, where government could collect significant amounts of revenue for redistribution and equity considerations.
Be that as it may, though, the UWP did correctly note that the gas prices were “high”, and the government collected significant tax revenue. What is interesting, though, is how the UWP in their manifesto promised significant economically costly initiatives, while arguing that there was a need for the reduction of taxes. What would have been interesting to understand was the financial stream for these initiatives, as the reduction of taxes does not immediately mean that the economy can grow sufficiently raise revenue for the government.
This is a case where 1 + 1 does not automatically equal 2. The debate around VAT‑exempt and zero‑rated items raised similar questions. What was notable, however, was the UWP’s decision not to commit, this time, to a VAT reduction, as they had in the last election cycle, nor to advance an alternative proposal such as a sales tax.
The government may argue that the “artificial” price of gas stemmed from the inelasticity of the good: regardless of price, it will be purchased because it is a necessity with few substitutes. This, in turn, created fiscal space to raise significant revenue for redistribution. Yet this policy choice was not without trade‑offs. Raising revenue in this way still affects the lower socio‑economic groups the redistribution is intended to support.
Alternatively, it may be the case that the usage pyramid is not concentrated solely among that class but spans others as well, thereby enabling broader distributional benefits.
The UWP should have explained their economic philosophy on gas prices, while articulating concurrently how they intended to fund their own programme of action, and if they intended to keep some of the interventions pursued by the government.
On the question of health care, the UWP’s narrative of the ailing state was not without foundation, but just like other issues, there was a clear credibility and trust issue. But this was compounded by their inability to deliver St Jude, amid the obscure, sensationalised rhetoric of all politicians that they fell into, which was that they were delivering a state-of-the-art facility with multipurpose use for international travel, nursing university, et cetera.
But, beyond that, the health philosophies of the parties differed significantly, and the UWP was unable to convince the public that its health insurance plan was a viable option. The UWP was unable to explain the health insurance beyond quoting premium figures and the coverage of the insurance per person. Questions about financing, ability and metrics used to include the vulnerable and those on the poverty list or unemployed, types of diagnoses covered and not covered, deductibles, among other nuanced public policy considerations, abounded and were not answered.
TC Brown’s response to this scenario was simply that these were elusive schemes and dreams which were not delivered, while advocating for some reprieve for the prime minister because of the “debts he clear in health care” as well as a focus on food production and security as a response to the rising cost of living and health issues.
Furthermore, the UWP’s response to crime and violence was valid to the extent that they critiqued the prime minister and the SLP for not moving beyond the “providing resources to the police” narrative to dealing with deep-seated and institutional reasons for crime and violence.
The UWP may have been much better at critiquing the targeted social interventions meant to act as a deterrent to crime and violence than at the inner workings of the force. But, beyond that, they also did not mount a sufficiently robust crime response, limiting it to the reinstating of the K-9 unit (though needed), a command centre (nothing more than a sub-committee of cabinet) and other technical responses at ports of entry, such as scanners. And, while the technical responses were required and should not have been halted, they still did not respond to the deep-seated underlying rationale for crime and violence in Saint Lucia.
And as has been the case in this election, the UWP continued to speak of border control as an esoteric and lacking in detail proposal. Put simply, the more they explained it, the less of the concept remained, as it was an idea that collapsed under its own explanation. It was like trying to explain fog by using the word fog.
But the slippery slope of comparing crime numbers was politically unwise, as it risks trivialising the loss of life by reducing it to a narrow numbers game. Instead, the UWP should have focused on the interventions they would — and have implemented to make people safer, and on the lack of leadership on crime and violence, rather than asking whether people “felt safer” during their term, as though the first murder occurred in 2021. One murder is too many, and implying that 50 is somehow not too many is hardly a marker of good governance.
TC Brown warned that “those who politicise crime to gain power will soon realise they playing with fire”. Yet the UWP only very late in the campaign began speaking about rehabilitative measures for crime and violence, precisely where part of the response should have been. Instead, they leaned toward an overly punitive approach: more jails, more permissive firearm legislation (as though a gun problem could be solved by adding more guns), and constant attacks on cabinet ministers, the decriminalisation of marijuana, and COVID‑19 protocols. It was, frankly, intellectually bankrupt.
TC Brown’s broader defence is instructive: “Crime is a consuming fire that is taking a toll through every nook and cranny over the world; every one of us should play a role to bring this crime scourge under control.”
Clearly, TC Brown was right that Mr Pierre’s performance earned him a second term. What was less right was his picong that, if he won the crown, he and Mr Pierre would defend their crowns next year.
Rahym R. Augustin‑Joseph, the 2024 Rhodes Scholar for the Commonwealth Caribbean and a two‑time valedictorian, is currently pursuing a Master of Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. He holds two First Class Honours degrees from the UWI Cave Hill Campus in Political Science and Law. An award‑winning debater, public speaker, youth leader, and advocate, Rahym is passionate about law, politics, and governance, and is committed to shaping the future of Saint Lucia and the wider Caribbean.
