FULL Series: Crossing the Floor- ‘Beavis and Butt-Head’

Anthony Smith Jr. resigned from the UPP to sit as an independent and (mere hours later) somehow join the Labour administration of Gaston Browne as a full Cabinet member.

I won’t spare time discussing how it feels to see Gaston Browne score one more point in the match of politics. I would personally prefer to see him out of power. 

But there is no denying his astuteness as a politician and political strategist.

What was witnessed has been a masterfully choreographed bit of politics, which has delivered to the Browne administration the effective support of one more seat in Parliament by way of Anthony Smith Jr., in a situation where it had only a 1-seat majority, and an ageing MP whose health and vitality are subject to constant debate.

So, what can we say of Gaston Browne in this instance?

Certainly, he deserves a commendation for taking the necessary steps, Machiavellian though they may be, to ensure the stability of his government and secure his tenure in office for at least the next few years till a general election without having to worry about Sir Robin’s tenure in St. Philip’s North.

He has fulfilled his role as party leader. He gets a sticker. Go to the front of the class even though you’re despicable.

Crossing the Floor Part 2: Anthony, The Man of the Year

In Part 2, we discuss Anthony Smith, Jr., no doubt likely to be Time Magazine’s Man of the Year.

Whilst Gaston Browne has done little more than open his political arms to the possibility of turncoats and crossovers, Anthony Smith Jr. cannot be so easily forgiven. It is Mr. Smith who actually left an opposition party to join the Labour government within hours of his resignation.

This is a man who was elected to Parliament on his first try, and has expended comparatively little in terms of years and effort in politics as compared to many of his former colleagues. He has been an MP for the sum total of a mere 16 months. 

He was elected on the basis of the support of two thousand and twenty-two people who voted against a Labour government with the hope of seeing the back of Gaston Browne. He has rewarded their confidence not by working assiduously to hold the Browne administration to account, but by delivering the seat they bestowed upon him as a gift to Gaston Browne in exchange for a position in Browne’s Cabinet. In so doing, he puts himself and his evidently ravenous ambition before the expectations of the two thousand and more people who put him in Parliament.

It is blatantly ironic that whilst betraying the expectations and confidence of those two thousand+ voters, he exists from the party with which he was elected writing, “Throughout my political career, I have been steadfast in my commitment to transparency, integrity, and public service.” I would invite you to laugh, but it really is not funny. Integrity? Do you know what would have demonstrated integrity? Actually sitting as an independent. 

I have no love for the main opposition. And if Mr. Smith says they treated him “appallingly” then I see no issue with him leaving. We are not married to parties. But how does being fed up with your current party (UPP) suddenly equate to being ready to serve under the opposing party (ABLP) that you campaigned against 16 months ago? 

Let’s be honest. Mr. Smith has demonstrated that he could care less about what the people who voted for him expect or deserve. As far as he is concerned, the seat belongs to him and he should leverage it to get what he wants, right? We are not talking about a man who went through a long and arduous process of falling out with his party, going independent, and eventually seeing benefit to working with the government. We are talking about a man who literally resigned on the evening of July the 16th, and was sworn-in as a minister less than 12 hours later on the morning of July the 17th. 

Extensive effort had to have been made on his part to conceal his intentions, to reassure his colleagues, and to execute his plan. Integrity? A man of integrity would have looked his leader in the eye and said “If things don’t change in this party, I am going to leave.” A man of integrity would have met with his constituents and said, “The party won’t change and I’m considering going it alone”. What we had here was a man who clearly took steps to conceal his intentions, avoid debate surrounding his actions, and capitalize on the seat that voters awarded him by trading it for a Cabinet position. Where’s the integrity in that?

Where’s the integrity in a man who has so far made zero media appearances beyond appearing with ABS for an interview at his swearing-in. He has held no constituency meetings on the subject, and has generally failed to address the public on the matter of his resignation and appointment to the government? Are the people such an afterthought that we need not even be addressed directly? Are we owed so little? 

He has had time for photo opportunities, but no time to address his actions publicly or speak to his constituents? Lord knows that when he does make his media rounds, he won’t opt for a press conference, but will likely swagger over to ABS or Pointe FM or WTP and be questioned by his comrades about why the soles of Gaston shoes taste so good. 

Where’s the integrity in a man who wrote in 2021 that “the Labour Party represents corruption, thievery, dishonesty, skullduggery, and misbehavior in public office” only to join them in government, having not explained himself to the people who elected him? If you have not even had the good sense to publicly counter what you have previously said against the government you know serve in, does that not make you a newly minted accessory to the “corruption, thievery, dishonesty, skullduggery, and misbehavior in public office” that you so clearly once decried?

What’s more, that 2021 written comment by Smith was part of a public rebuff to Gaston Browne who at the time (as Gaston Browne does) got on his station and declared that he and Smith had spoken about Smith joining Labour. This was 2021. Smith denied the assertion entirely, writing that Browne was “a pathological liar and a disgrace to the office of the Prime Minister“. Yet, you have now earned the confidence of a man you described as a pathological liar? I wonder why. All in all, Mr. Smith gets a failing grade for being dishonest and lacking any integrity or loyalty to the electorate that placed him in a position of power and privilege.  

In Part 3, we discuss the Opposition Leader, Jamale Pringle MP.

Crossing the Floor Part 3: His Majesty’s (Disloyal) Opposition

Anthony Smith Jr. leaves the UPP and joins the ABLP Cabinet whilst an “independent” MP. And where is Jamale Pringle, Leader of His Majesty’s (evidently disloyal) Opposition? Lord help this man. What is he really doing? It’s been days now and all we have from the party is a press release? Where is the leadership? Where is the defiance? Where is the rallying call? Where is the response to this open political betrayal? A member of your party has delivered a seat to the government, sidestepping the constitution and propping up the 1-seat majority administration. What is your national response? If Jamale Pringle intends to be the leader of the UPP, he needs to be the leader of the UPP for f**k’s sake. Where are you? 

This man’s profile since his election as party leader has been slim. He should be launching a new party platform, invigorating the party with a new life and a new energy, presenting a looming threat to the government through his growing popularity. Pringle should be quick and coherent in response to this. The party has gone silent. It suggests weakness, disarray, and shock. It is reinforcing the view that you are not cut out for the job. I hoped to see a leader come out defiant, in such strong terms that it makes it clear to people why they were elected leader. But alas, I’m still waiting.

In Part 4, we discuss Regis Burton and Lamin Newton.

Crossing the Floor Part 4: Beavis and Butt-Head

Regis Burton and Lamin Newton, sorry to say it but allyuh hopeless. There is no way that Anthony Smith made this move unless clear assurances were given about his political future. He didn’t do this to serve one term as an independent MP then get appointed to the Senate. He intends to run again in ASW. That means you guys have been shafted. Regis, you’ve been shafted a second time. 

In all likelihood, they may let one of you be a caretaker for a while, but a poll will be done nearer to the next election where Anthony Smith will likely be ahead of yall by leaps and bounds based on his already having won the seat and on his work up till then. Remember too, he now has the ability to spread government resources around unfairly, as all ministers do, and will no doubt begin doing so immediately. 

I’m sorry gents, but your party never really saw any promise in you. It was a sham. Gaston knew what he had planned. Now they’re gonna tell us to shut up and fall in line. Apparently politics doesn’t reward integrity. The events of the past week show that to earn a reward, you have to be a deceitful conniving son of a goat. Regis, your party doesn’t want upright new blood. They want politically blood thirsty pragmatists. Lamin, Chet can’t save you.

In Part 5, we discuss the obvious question many are asking amidst this debacle: How can you be independent, and clearly not independent?

Smithdinger’s Cat is a thought experiment devised by the Antiguan political physicist Anthony Smithdinger, which he designed to illustrate a paradox of quantum political superposition wherein a hypothetical MP may be considered both independent and a member of the Labour Party simultaneously because the MP’s fate is linked to a random  event (political treachery) that may (or may not) occur.

Yes. You are all wondering how someone can cross the floor without crossing the floor. I know. I have asked myself the same thing. The constitution says that an MP shall vacate his seat “if, having been elected to the House by virtue of being a member of a political party, he resigns his party whip and withdraws his allegiance from that party: Provided that he shall not be required to vacate his seat so long as he remains an independent member of the House.” 

The provision is well known and has generally been interpreted as a prohibition on party MPs of any colour crossing the floor to join another party with which they were not elected. What Mr. Smith has done is crossed the floor in all respects except sending in his paperwork. He has left his party. He has caucused with another party, and he has joined the government, accepting a full Cabinet posting, no doubt with the expectation that his vote will be cast with Labour so long as he retains his position in the executive. 

All he has avoided doing is going to the Labour Party office on Neugent Avenue and asking for a membership form. Clearly, his expectation is to caucus with Labour, vote with Labour, sit in a Labour government, while making preparations to run on a Labour ticket, while holding onto the technical designation of being an “independent” MP.

This is an opportunity for us to revisit the issue of constitutional reform. Few things are perfect, and our constitution is not one of them. Nevertheless, it is a very robust one when compared to many many many others. If the intention of the framers was to prevent someone crossing the floor, then no provision should be made for someone being an independent (partyless) member if they were elected with a party. 

This is because an ex-party independent member can sit in the house, independent by virtue of the fact that they are not a member of any party anymore, and still choose to act as if they were (like Smith) and vote in accordance with any party’s agenda, based on arrangements reached with that party which make them a member in all aspects except having filled out a membership form.

So, where does that leave us? How should right thinking citizens feel? Putting political loyalties and biases aside, it is clear that this possible loophole needs to be unequivocally eliminated. If the intention of the Constitution is to prevent people crossing the floor, then we must prescribe that once you’re elected on a party ticket, and you are no longer a member of that party, and are not contesting it in court, you vacate your seat. That’s how it’s now done in Trinidad in response to the mischievous inclinations of members to cross the floor.

Additionally, we need that glorious measure that groups such as ABRCE have been championing for eons now – recall petitions or referendums. A recall petition or referendum is a procedure by which, in certain places, voters can remove an elected official from office through a referendum or a petition before that official’s term of office has ended. They occur in several countries. In the UK for example, they can be triggered where an MP is convicted of a certain type of offence. A recall petition is triggered automatically upon conviction. If it meets the signature threshold, the MP is ousted and a by-election is held to replace them.

In Ecuador, any popularly elected authority may have their election revoked by the electorate. The request for revocation cannot be made in the first or last year of their tenure and only one revocation attempt can be made throughout their tenure. This is to limit the recall measure from being used frivolously. If 10% of registered voters in the specific electorate support the measure, the official is ousted. 

In Canada, in British Columbia specifically, voters can petition to have their Member of the Legislative Assembly removed from office once they have been in office for at least 18 months. If over 40 percent of registered voters in the electorate sign the petition, the Chief Electoral Officer informs the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the member in question that the member has been recalled and their seat vacated.

Imagine how circumspect your representative here in Antigua and Barbuda might be if they knew that major shenanigans might well result in their rapid removal from office. This is the point at which the goons appear in the comment section saying that nothing of sort can work here and it would invite chaos. Rest assured, they are not here trying to keep our democracy intact. They are here trying to keep their party in power. Pay them no mind. They are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Accountability is never a bad thing, and a moderate measure giving constituents at least one opportunity, for example, after at least 18 months, to recall their MP, cannot be a bad thing.

In Part 6, we discuss the precedent set by this debacle and its implications.

Crossing the Floor Part 6: The Profundity of Absurdity Is Causing Incredulity

Once again, just like in the Kelvin Simon saga, the Labour Party has demonstrated its utter disdain for the constitutional order. I genuinely believe that the main opposition party needs to take this matter to court and argue that Smith is a member of the ABLP, is therefore not an independent member of the House, and that his seat is thus vacant.

How do we define membership in a party? Does it hinge solely on filling out a form? If I fill out a party membership form and I am approved in the year 2000, but I distance myself from the party a year later and have nothing to do with them for 5 years, whilst supporting other parties, am I still effectively a member? What if I never fill out a membership form, but I campaign for the party, I organise for the party, I attend meetings, I donate to branch initiatives, and I am present and vocal at every event, am I not a member of the party? 

My question is this: is there any room to define membership not solely in terms of formality but in terms of practice? If so, is it not clear that Anthony Smith Jr., MP for All Saints West, is now a member of the Labour Party? No? Why not? Because he (presumably) never signed an application form? Is that a joke? Of course he is. He is being roundly congratulated by every Labour member from here to Jerusalem, to Siberia and back. 

So what is the intention of the Constitution when it requires an ex-party MP to remain “an independent member of the House” in order to retain their seat and not vacate it? Did the framers intend for a situation where an “independent” ex-party MP from the opposition accepts membership in the Cabinet hours after resigning from the opposition? Did it envisage a situation where an ex-party MP now “independent” would make a commitment to supply the ruling party with his vote in the House in exchange for his Cabinet position? (we can assume that’s what has happened) 

How can this be permissible? Will Anthony Smith as a minister in the Labour Cabinet not have allegiance to the group of Labour Ministers he works with? And more so, will he not have allegiance to the Labour Prime Minister with whose confidence he gained his appointment? How then is it sensible to contend that Anthony Smith Jr. remains an “independent” MP when he is in the House? His actions demonstrate that he is a member, newly minted, of the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. 

How can you leave the opposition to effectively form a coalition with the ruling party, but not have crossed the floor? It speaks volumes that you accepted the appointment mere hours after resigning from your previous party. It suggests planning, discussion and collaboration. But you’re not a member, right? We’re supposed to swallow that? Once again the Labour Party demonstrates its tacit disdain for the principles that underpin our democratic order, preferring instead to practice a politics based on utter pragmatism, wandering in the unethical grey spaces of the law they so feverishly search for and bask in. Mr. Smith, you have not  remained an independent member. Your actions show you to be a member of the Labour Party. You crossed the floor. Your seat should be vacated. 

A court should have the opportunity to consider whether his actions in the midst of this debacle can be construed as demonstrating his “membership” or “allegiance” to the ABLP, despite the absence of a formal on paper application (assumedly). Otherwise, this will allow MPs on either side to cross the floor freely as long as they refrain from officially completing a party membership application. In practice, they may nonetheless conduct themselves as if they were party members. Is this what the Constitution envisaged? 

You can be assured that if the parties in power and in opposition were revered, that the Labour Party would be swift to take the UPP to court and shell down money to Anthony Astapahn SC to spin whatever legal arguments necessary to bamboozle whichever poor judge got the case. Heck, it was only last year that the government was arguing for weeks that MPs were not allowed to resign from Parliament at all. Yall forgot? 

Jonathan Willard

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]