WHO GETS TO BE “HONOURABLE”? ELISHA NORBERT HAS A POINT
Every now and then, someone raises a question in our politics that deserves more than the usual Labour-versus-UWP response.
This is one of those times.
Elisha Norbert has challenged Speaker of the House Claudius Francis to show where in the Constitution of Saint Lucia it says that only Ministers of Government are entitled to carry the title “Honourable.”
And quite frankly, we believe that is a fair question.
Forget for a moment who asked it. Forget party colours. Forget whether you like Elisha Norbert, Claudius Francis, the Government or the Opposition.
The question is simple:
Where is it written?
If the Constitution says that only Ministers are to be called “Honourable,” then show us the section and the matter is settled.
But if it doesn't, then surely the public is entitled to ask where this rule comes from.
Is it in the Standing Orders of Parliament? Is it some long-established parliamentary convention? Was there a ruling by a previous Speaker? Is it part of official government protocol?
And if the practice changed at some point, when did it change?
These are not unreasonable questions.
OUR OWN RECORDS MAKE THIS EVEN MORE INTERESTING
This is where things get rather interesting.
When we looked back at Saint Lucia's own official records, we found examples of people who were not Government Ministers being referred to as “Honourable.”
Opposition parliamentarians have carried the title.
Senators have carried it.
Speakers and Presidents of the Senate have carried it.
And here is the part that makes this debate particularly interesting.
Claudius Francis himself was officially referred to as “Honourable Senator Claudius Francis” when he served as President of the Senate.
So naturally, a question follows:
What changed?
If that form of address was acceptable then, why is it apparently not acceptable now?
Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
If there is, give it to the people.
That is all Norbert is really asking for.
THIS IS BIGGER THAN A TITLE
Some people may look at this whole controversy and wonder why anyone should care whether somebody has “Honourable” in front of his or her name.
Fair enough.
But look a little deeper.
This isn't really about a word.
It is about how we regard Parliament and, particularly, the Senate.
Saint Lucia's Parliament isn't just the Cabinet. It isn't just Government Ministers sitting around a table making decisions.
We have a House of Assembly and we have a Senate.
Senators debate legislation. They scrutinise Bills. They raise concerns and are supposed to provide another level of examination before legislation becomes law.
Of course, we shouldn't pretend that our Senate has the same powers as the elected House. It doesn't.
Neither should we ignore the political reality of how it is constituted.
Six of the eleven Senators are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, three on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, while two are appointed by the Governor-General following consultation with religious, economic and social interests.
That naturally raises a much bigger question about how independent our Senate can truly be.
And perhaps that is where Norbert's comments strike a nerve.
HAVE WE COME TO SEE THE SENATE AS A RUBBER STAMP?
This is the discussion Saint Lucia should probably be having.
Not simply whether Senator X or Senator Y should have “Honourable” before a name.
What do we actually expect from our Senators?
Are they there simply to vote along party lines?
Or are they expected to examine legislation, question Government policy and occasionally tell their own side, “Hold on, we need to look at this again”?
Because there is little point having a second chamber if everybody already knows exactly how every vote will go before the debate even begins.
And that criticism shouldn't be aimed at one political party.
Governments change.
Today's Government becomes tomorrow's Opposition, and today's Opposition may become tomorrow's Government.
The principle remains the same.
Parliament should never become merely an extension of Cabinet.
The Executive must be answerable to Parliament—not the other way around.
OTHER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY
There is another reason Norbert's question shouldn't simply be brushed aside.
Across the Commonwealth Caribbean, there isn't one identical practice when it comes to who is styled “Honourable.”
Some jurisdictions reserve the designation mainly for Ministers and certain office-holders. Others use it more broadly for Speakers, Senate Presidents and other parliamentarians.
So saying, “That's parliamentary convention,” only raises another question:
Which convention are we following in Saint Lucia?
And more importantly, has our convention always been the same?
Our own historical records suggest it hasn't always been applied in the way now being suggested.
That's why the Speaker has an opportunity to clear this up once and for all.
ELISHA NORBERT DESERVES AN ANSWER
Choiseul on the Move supports Elisha Norbert on this particular issue—not because we have decided that every Senator has some automatic constitutional right to be called “Honourable.”
We haven't found anything in the Constitution saying that either.
We support him because the question is legitimate.
If only Ministers are entitled to the designation, show us where that rule comes from.
That's it.
Give us the constitutional provision.
Give us the Standing Order.
Give us the parliamentary ruling.
Give us the protocol.
Or simply explain the convention and how it developed.
There should be nothing controversial about asking the Speaker of the House to explain the rules and conventions governing Parliament.
In fact, we should expect that level of transparency.
SOMETIMES A SMALL QUESTION OPENS A BIGGER DOOR
Maybe this whole debate started with two words—“The Honourable.”
But it has opened the door to a much more important conversation.
What role do we really want our Senate to play?
Do we want Senators who challenge, scrutinise and question?
Or do we simply want another chamber where Government and Opposition representatives turn up knowing beforehand which way their respective sides will vote?
Saint Lucia deserves strong institutions regardless of who is in office.
And our Parliament should be one of the strongest.
So yes, Elisha Norbert has asked a question worth answering.
There is no need for political gymnastics.
If it's written somewhere, show us.
If it isn't written in the Constitution but comes from parliamentary convention, explain that.
And if the convention has changed, tell Saint Lucians when it changed and why.
Because ultimately this isn't Elisha Norbert's Parliament.
It isn't Claudius Francis' Parliament.
It isn't Philip J. Pierre's Parliament.
It doesn't belong to the SLP or the UWP.
It belongs to the people of Saint Lucia.
And the people have every right to ask how it works.
— Choiseul on the Move
