The Alfred Prospere dilemma

Reflections on the Deputy Speaker appointment and what happened next

As Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre announced his Cabinet last week, many sat in anticipation as he moved around the round table in Parliament, waiting to see who, or if, there would be a Deputy Speaker of the House. For many, the question was not if, but who.

Context matters

Those who focused on whether there would be a Deputy Speaker were watching to see if the Prime Minister might, as politicians sometimes do, become that which he once opposed. The probing question was whether Pierre would replicate his predecessor, Allen Chastanet, whom he has branded himself as diametrically opposed to. In Chastanet’s 2016 government, no Deputy Speaker was appointed throughout the term, forcing the House into significant disruptions during proceedings.

Yet history shows this was not always the case. For the House to commence proceedings after an election, the Constitution of Saint Lucia requires, under section 37:

“When the House first meets after any general election of members and before it proceeds to the despatch of any other business except the election of the Speaker, the House shall elect a member of the House, who is not a member of the Cabinet or a Parliamentary Secretary, to be Deputy Speaker of the House. If the office of Deputy Speaker falls vacant at any time before the next dissolution of Parliament, the House shall, as soon as convenient, elect another member of the House to that office.”

In short, the House must elect a member who is neither in Cabinet nor a Parliamentary Secretary to serve as Deputy Speaker before proceedings can begin post-election. This is why Chastanet nominated Sarah Flood Beaubrun as Deputy Speaker to legally constitute the House, even though the first sitting had already exceeded the constitutional 30-day requirement.

She later vacated the seat to become a Minister of Government, creating a vacancy that was never filled. Chastanet argued that once a vacancy arose, the Constitution’s wording shifted from “shall” to “may”, making the appointment discretionary rather than mandatory. Pressed further, he claimed that since the Constitution imposed no sanctions, he was not obliged to follow the long-held convention of ensuring the House had a Deputy Speaker, a practice observed since Independence.

Public interest lawyer Martinus Francois challenged this interpretation, taking the Speaker and Parliament to court. He argued that “may” in this context was mandatory, not discretionary – that the House must appoint a Deputy Speaker. Sometimes “may” can indeed be read as “shall”.

The final judgment was never handed down. The court noted the matter had become academic since the Government had rectified it. Yet, even mindful of judicial resource constraints, I believe the case should have been decided, to expand the jurisprudence of public law in Saint Lucia and the wider Eastern Caribbean. A ruling would have clarified how Parliament can be properly or improperly constituted under section 37.

In a subsequent claim, the court noted that delays in Francois’ case infringed his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Yet it also held that his rights were not breached because he could not show “material” loss. This reasoning was flawed. As a public interest litigant, Francois had no material gain from the outset. His aim was accountability, transparency, and the upholding of democratic principles – not personal profit. Public interest litigation is not about damages; it is about citizens holding government accountable.

Fast forward to 2021: Amendment through the backdoor

When Jeremiah Norbert vacated the Deputy Speaker post to become a Minister of Government, observers wondered whether Pierre’s administration would become what it once opposed.

Instead, the Government sought to amend the Constitution to allow the Deputy Speaker to come from outside Parliament, similar to the Speaker. Ironically, Chastanet raised the constitutional alarm, noting that amending section 37 required changes to entrenched provisions governing the House’s composition –changes that demanded not only a supermajority but also a referendum.

While a parliamentary vote would have been straightforward, a referendum posed greater challenges. Caribbean referenda have often failed, as Dr. Wendy Grenade has observed, due to adversarial political cultures, lack of bipartisan support and poorly informed electorates. In such contexts, “Don’t know” often translates to “No”.

Ultimately, Dr Kenny D. Anthony, the former Prime Minister, was nominated and elected Deputy Speaker. Yet the amendment was less about comprehensive constitutional reform than about preserving a bloated Cabinet and satisfying MPs with ministerial appointments. It relieved the Prime Minister of the burden of “demoting” one of his own to Deputy Speaker, especially since the Opposition would not nominate anyone.

Tit for tat

This reform skirted around deeper shortcomings of Westminster. Instead of tackling systemic issues – term limits, prime ministerial powers, fixed election dates, recall provisions, expanded rights – it cherry-picked one change for the benefit of the political elite.

The Opposition failed to critique the amendment politically, ignoring its cost to the public purse. Parliament, however, has significant work to do to deepen democracy. The Deputy Speaker could lead in that regard, with new responsibilities and roles.

The Prospere dilemma

With Kenny Anthony’s retirement from electoral politics, the lacuna reappeared. The Prime Minister had to nominate a Deputy Speaker from among his MPs.

Alfred Prospere, former Minister of Agriculture, was chosen. Pierre admitted it was a tough decision, hinting that other new MPs were considered. He emphasised his government’s commitment to the rule of law and constitutional conventions, and suggested Prospere’s return to Cabinet would be considered once legal technicalities were resolved.

Prospere, in turn, reassured supporters that his appointment was not a demotion, but another avenue to serve. Yet the very need for such reassurance revealed how ministerial office is prized above parliamentary representation. The MP role, the true mandate of electoral office, is often overshadowed by the prestige of Cabinet.

The people do have a point

This dynamic reflects how political elites and citizens alike perceive governance. Constituents often see ministers, not MPs, as the locus of development, believing ministerial office grants access to resources. Yet this discretionary allocation risks undermining national priorities, distributing projects for political capital rather than evidence-based necessity.

Ministerial office also grants access to Cabinet decision-making, where scholarships, concessions and projects are shaped long before Parliament sees them. Constituents fear disadvantage if their MP is absent from Cabinet, as benefits may be diverted elsewhere. In this rat race of limited resources and unlimited wants, as Bob Marley observed, “every man must see for himself”.

Beyond technicalities, there is a psychological dimension. Constituents feel pride when their representative is appointed Minister. In rural areas, such appointments are seen as proof that these communities can produce leaders of national importance, a rebuttal to narratives of inferiority. Yet dual portfolios stretch MPs thin, risking neglect of constituency concerns.

What should Prospere do?

Prospere must not see his role merely as deputising for the Speaker in his absence. Instead, he should strengthen proceedings, processes and democratic responsibility within Parliament.

Some key imperatives for his tenure include:

• Upgrading the Parliament website so Bills, Committee Reports, and Hansard are easily accessible.
• Strengthening committee systems and encouraging public petitions and questions to Ministers.
• Infusing technology and AI into parliamentary processes to improve efficiency and transparency.
• Expanding public education and engagement on Parliament across the country.
• Championing stronger legislation and accountability mechanisms.

In my view, the Deputy Speaker should adopt a passion project – treating it as his ministerial portfolio – to galvanise parliamentary proceedings and democracy.

At the same time, close attention must be paid to the voices from Dennery South. Public education and dialogue should accompany institutional strengthening, ensuring that reforms resonate with citizens’ lived experiences. Done well, this can be a win-win for everyone, but only if lessons are drawn from all sides and applied collaboratively.

Looking ahead

Pierre has signalled that Prospere’s return to Cabinet will be considered once legal matters are resolved. Yet if a referendum is required, the balancing of egos, ambitions and expectations will intensify.

What may be opportune is the cultivation of a backbench political culture. Ministerial appointments should not be guaranteed. Backbenchers must be empowered to represent their constituents meaningfully, without ministerial trappings. This requires re-educating citizens, curbing psychological biases and transforming decision-making processes so that representation is not contingent on executive office.

In such a system, there would be no uproar when an MP is not part of Cabinet. Constituents would still be assured of quality representation and governmental support.