St Rose Heading For a Defeat Without the Backing of the Party's Machinery?

Top: Dr. P. Prosper(SLP) Bottom: Dr. A. St Rose(IND) Right: Hon. B. Felix(UWP)

Going it alone is rarely as easy as we think.  Winning without a party machinery behind you isn’t easy!!!

It’s  something that needs to be borne in mind by Alphonsus St Rose who was rejected over Pauline Prosper  during the candidate selection process of the St Lucia Labour Party a couple of months ago.

That’s especially true if he intends to stand as independent at the next general election.

Independent candidates face many obstacles in the St Lucia. In all constituencies, the United Workers Party and St Lucia Labour Party candidates automatically are the most frequently acceptable symbols on the ballot, whereas the independent candidates usually have to convince themselves that they stand a chance just to be confident that he will want to be on the ballot. The electorate, over the years has been composed of mostly UWP’s and SLP’s, who have a strong incentive to protect the existing duopoly. Also, Independent candidates often face financial difficulties because they have to rely on their personal saving and/or very few hefty donors.

The two political parties are a lot like the two giants of the cola world, Coke and Pepsi. Although each wants to win, they both recognize that it is in their mutual interest to keep a third cola from gaining significant market share. Coke and Pepsi, many people have argued, conspire to keep any competitor from gaining ground. The Flambeaus and the Etoiles function in much the same way.

Many voters don’t want to waste their ballot, and thus gravitate toward a parliamentary candidate they think has a chance to win. Independent candidates have a hard time building enough of a following to actually win a constituency seat. And without a grass-roots base of officials, independent candidates who aren’t already well-known have a very difficult time building momentum.

Are there implications here for St Rose in the next General Elections? Well, In spite of his confidence, it’s possible that as the 2021 election approaches, his vote share of the stock in Choiseul/Saltibus will dwindle. Some of his backers will decide that a protest vote isn’t as important as actually influencing the outcome. Many are undecided or may not even vote per se, but SLP’s and UWP’s will rather be committed to Prosper or Felix.

 Challenges for St Rose.

St Rose faces challenges that party candidates like Prosper and Felix do not. Simply put, political parties matter in St Lucia. The importance of local campaigns and candidates pales in comparison with that of the national campaign and party leaders when it comes to voter decisions.  Parties and their leaders provide important information shortcuts or cues to voters about ideology and policy positions. Moreover, they command media and public attention.

The biggest challenge for St Rose can be trying to convince voters that he would be able to represent them effectively. Parties dominate the legislative process. The ability to participate effectively in the HOUSE is related to being a member of a parliamentary party. An independent campaign needs to communicate consistently that voters would be well served, even without party backing.

The infrastructure of independent candidate greatly differs from those of the two major parties. The St Lucia Labour Party and United Workers Party have their national, constituency organizations, as well as a lot of other SLP and UWP groups.

Independent candidates, on the other hand, do not have such a sprawling, cohesive network. 

St Rose, I am sure is fully cognizant of the ramifications of his action. It would serve him best to go along with Pauline Prosper just to bring this seat home. Splitting  Labour votes will be a disaster for the SLP.

Just like Neville Cenac St Rose will never be forgiven if SLP loses the Choiseul/Saltibus seat in 2021.

Does Choiseul/Saltibus Need Another Independent Candidate ?

“We cannot support dishonesty, manipulation, a lack of transparency, no accountability and corruption in decision making and governance of the people's affairs.

So we are campaigning and voting for an Independent Dr. A St. Rose.

Get your troops ready my soldier. Thank you for standing with me for what is right for you, your future and country. Thank you for your support, trust and confidence in me to represent and fight for you...much appreciated!”  Whatsapp communique dated July 23, 2020 from Dr Alphonsus St Rose’s Camp.

Some claim that we need more independent candidates in elections; those who are disillusioned with party politics think that we could find judicious wise independents that could do the job just as we want.

I have no problem with “independent” people offering their services to the electors. Freedom to stand and to put a different point of view is vital to life in a democracy. So is choice between serious candidates who can win. There is nothing stopping an independent candidate becoming a serious rival for power, if their message is popular and the other competing parties are unimpressive. Occasionally this happens.  Often in General elections people want to choose between the major parties, because they want to influence which party will end up running the body concerned.

However, I do think we need to examine what we mean by “independent”.  An independent can be genuinely independent of all political parties. That means that they will not take a party whip once elected to a given body. They can make up their own minds, unguided by colleagues in the same party. Some will think this an advantage.

However, in a Parliament it also has some disadvantages. It means the independent cannot form a government. The independent cannot guarantee to introduce anything they offered in their manifesto, as they may not even have a seconder for their proposals, let alone a majority. They may become inadvertent or unintentional liars or promise breakers. In office they discover they have to change their minds or broker deals with others to try to get anything done.

The question of independence from a party should not be confused with true independence of thought. An independent might be more ideological than a party candidate. They might have clear and strong prejudices, but not declare them before the election. You do not know how an independent will decide matters or what is likely to be their view of a common problem, unless they tell you in their manifesto. Often their manifesto is very thin on detail.  With a UWP or SLP candidate you have more idea of what you are likely to get.

My Take:  Do Party candidates have an advantage over independent candidates? It seems to be the case – independent candidates have garnered fewer votes on average as compared to party candidates.

Advantages which party candidates may have over independent candidates include:

• The benefit of an established party brand name
• Organizational and logistical assistance
• Backing of popular political leaders in the party

An individual might want to run on a platform supporting the interests of certain groups identified by gender or community. This would be all right, provided he or she did not stir up hatred or promote unreasonable discrimination.

People wishing to stand as independents have found it hard. The electors do not seem to understand the idea. The electorate does not think of parties in terms of ideas. Their suspicion of independents seems to be linked to a desire to know to which group of persons a candidate has attached him or her-self —for that is what joining a party mostly means.

Therefore, independent candidates who are intent on overcoming the odds in the upcoming General Elections must be well-known, established and prominent individuals with proven leadership achievements in their field of expertise.