A change of law we can all agree on...

In yesterday’s midweek Searchlight, I wrote a letter to the editor under the headline “A Change of Law That We Can All Agree Upon…” In it, I ask parliamentarians to consider changing our laws to abolish our oath of allegiance to the Queen, and replace it with an oath to St. Vincent and the Grenadines instead. You could go buy a Searchlight, and get this wisdom distilled into a couple hundred words, or you can read on, and get the unabridged version for free (Save your time! Buy the Searchlight!)

When I was reading up on the changes that the ULP planned to make to the Representation of the People Act, I borrowed a law book from a lawyer buddy of mine. Volume I of the “Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Revised Edition, 1990” contains the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, plus other laws. (quick aside: did you know that it has been almost 20 years since the laws of SVG were compiled? That all the new laws since 1990 are scattered around in little books and pamphlets that only lawyers have access to? Why don’t we have revised laws dated 2010? How ‘bout 2000? And why aren’t all our laws online somewhere?)

Anyway, when I was flipping through the book, I stumbled on Chapter 6, Section 62, Form B of the Representation of the People Act. Here’s what it says:

PART VIII

Provisions Relating to the House of Assembly

62. Every person elected as a member of the House of Assembly shall, before sitting or voting therein, make the declaration of qualification in Form A and take and sign the oath of allegiance in Form B hereunder.

. . .

Form B

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

I, ____________________________________ do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

SO HELP ME GOD.

Ah, so there was the despised oath. Loyal readers of my blog (both of you, lol) know that I have been bitching about this oath for a while. I bitched about it during the referendum debate. In December, after the first parliament of ULP III, I complained again about “all those proud black people and anti-colonialists pledging loyalty” to the Queen. It really makes my skin crawl.

But I was shocked to see the oath right there in a regular law. If it’s just in a regular law, can’t we change it? I asked my lawyer buddy, who said nah, you can’t change it. He said that Australia and Canada still swore allegiance to the Queen too. He said that until you become a republic, parliamentarians in Commonwealth countries swear allegiance to the Queen. He said that that ship sailed when the “Yes” vote got its ass kicked in the referendum.

Yeah, yeah, referendum ass-kicking. Don’t remind me. But my buddy hadn’t really answered my question: if the oath is in a regular law – a law we are in the process of amending – why can’t we change the words of the oath?

I went to Wikipedia. Sure enough, Australia and Canada still swear allegiance to the Queen. BUT – and it’s a big BUT – they do it because the words of the oath are in their CONSTITUTION, not just in regular law!! In fact, politicians in Canada (especially Quebec) have been trying to change the oath for a while, but they haven’t been able to, because it would require a constitutional amendment. It’s right there in the Fifth Schedule of the Canadian Constitution.

Same thing in Australia: plenty people wanna change the oath, but its entrenched in their constitution, smack bang in the schedule. They need a constitutional amendment to change it, too.

So, the next thing I did was look in OUR Vincy Constitution. Is the Oath tucked away in there somewhere too? The answer is no. The oath is NOT in our Constitution. I looked in the law volume I had, and I looked in the version that’s online. No Oath.

So we CAN change the oath! Right?

I go back to my lawyer buddy, and confront him with the evidence of my legal sleuthing. (Repeated disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night). He asks me: “Well, what DOES our Constitution say about the Oath?”

I have an answer for him:

• Section 21 says that the Governor General has to take the Oath of Allegiance, but it doesn’t spell it out.
• Section 34 says that the Supervisor of Elections has to take the Oath of Allegiance, but also doesn’t spell it out. Same thing for members of the House of Representatives (Section 39); Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries (Section 58); members of the Public Service Commission (Section 77); and people applying for citizenship (Section 93)
• Then it says (Section 105): “‘oath of allegiance’ means such oath of allegiance as may be prescribed by law”.
• The Second Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the transition from being a colony to being an independent country, says (Section 7) that “Until such time as the oath of allegiance, the oath of secrecy or in relation to any office, the oath of office is prescribed by law, that oath may be taken in the form prescribed immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.”

Translation: The Vincy Oaths are spelled out by our regular laws, NOT our Constitution. If we don’t have an applicable oath in our regular law, we can just use the old one we inherited from the Brits until we come up with our own.

So, as I said in my Searchlight letter: “In other words, to whom or to what our parliamentarians swear allegiance is entirely up to them.”

Hearing my evidence, my lawyer buddy shrugged and said “Hmm. I guess you can change the wording then.” With that, he went back to drafting some affidavit or divorce or something else lucrative and inconsequential.

THIS IS NOT A SHRUGGING MOMENT!! THIS IS A BIG EFFING DEAL!!

OK, it’s not a ‘free at last! free at last! thank God almighty, we're free at last!’ moment, but still. There are two reasons we should change the Oath, and change it now: Nationalism and reconciliation.

The Nationalism reason is simple. Our politicians should be swearing to be faithful and true to St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Or Vincy citizens. Or our Constitution. Or all of the above. We should NOT be swearing it to the Queen. Seriously: what is the practical effect of swearing allegiance to the Queen? How can you be bound to that oath? Are our leaders answerable to the Queen? Is it their job to advance the Queen’s interests? ‘Course not. So the Oath to her is just a bunch of empty words: “I swear to do nothing. So help me God.”

(The colonial counterargument is that since SVG is a realm of the Queen, and she is our head of state, she represents the embodiment of the country. So swearing allegiance to her is really the same as swearing allegiance to her realm, SVG. I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. First of all, Queeny has a bunch of realms. So if I swear allegiance to her, am I simultaneously swearing to all of her realms? No offence, but I don’t think our parliamentarians should be swearing allegiance to Canada, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, thankyouverymuch. Also, how come other countries don’t swear allegiance to their head of state? I don’t hear Americans swearing to Obama – they swear to uphold their constitution. India doesn’t swear to its president, nor does Trinidad and Tobago. They swear to their republic and to defend their constitution. C’mon.)

We have one national hero in SVG: Chatoyer. What did he do that was so heroic? He fought the British and their monarchy. He was a nationalist. What do we do to honour him? We have our government officials swear allegiance to the same monarchy he was fighting.

Am I missing something?

The reconciliation reason is also simple: We’re in a poisoned political climate right now. The NDP has decided to challenge everything that the ULP proposes. Opposing parties are literally in the streets demonstrating against each other. Things are so bad in SVG that we have a Ministry of National Reconciliation.

Now, how do you begin reconciliation? You find something that everyone can agree on, and you agree on it. Changing the Oath isn’t gonna increase the deficit. It’s not gonna victimise anyone. It’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s symbolic. It’s profound. But it’s ultimately harmless.

Couldn’t we all agree on that?

Now watch how you tie the nationalism and the reconciliation together:

We already know that there will be a sitting of Parliament on March 3rd. That’s 11 days before Heroes Day, when we honour Chatoyer. We also know that the NDP will probably drag their supporters back onto the streets to demonstrate, and that “the major” Leacock will be out looking to “take the first bullet” as he pledged last week (of course, there were no bullets being fired and the police were unarmed, so it was an easy pledge to make. Good job, “major”. You are so brave.).

So the Government should add the amendment of the Representation of the People Act to the agenda. They should change the words of the Oath to something more patriotic. If the NDP has any sense, their parliamentarians will come off the streets for an hour or so to join in the unanimous passage of the amendment. All sides can make patriotic/nationalist statements, and all say “Aye” to push it through. The NDP will then say that they are still able to put partisanship aside in the interest of the people. The ULP will say that all of their changes to the Representation of the People Act are designed to bring it into modern times, including the parts that NDP is demonstrating against.

They will both say, with some justification, that the new Oath is more significant. They can say that the country of SVG and the rights of her citizens are now front and center in the consciousness of the Parliament, and that all secondary foolishness should be swept aside, in the interest of our people’s betterment, just as the new Oath says.

(The NDP can then go back to trying to ram the gates of Parliament and overturn fire engines.)

Then, on March 14th, up at the Obelisk, ALL members of the House should gather, and, as a chorus (not individually), they should publicly recite the words of the new Oath.

How’s THAT for a national reconciliation moment? How’s THAT for honouring our National Hero?

Yes, the Queen would still be our Head of State. Yes, we would still be a member of the Commonwealth. No, it’s not exactly a consolation prize for referendum defeat. No, it won’t make Arnhim and Ralph sit around a bonfire and sing “Kumbaya.” But it would still be one small step for parliament, one giant leap for nationhood. And it’s easy to do.

Now, we could argue about the words to the new Oath. I would go with something simple like:

I, ____________________________________ do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, her citizens, and her Constitution, according to law, so help me God.

(I’d also add the option for people to “affirm” rather than “swear,” and maybe leave off the God bit, if their religion/beliefs don’t allow).

Logic: Most modern countries swear to either their country or their constitution, or both. Trinidad’s is good (its in their constitution). It says:

“I, A. B., do swear by ............................... (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Trinidad and Tobago and will uphold the Constitution and the law, that I will conscientiously, impartially and to the best of my ability discharge my duties as .............................. and do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”

So TnT has: country, constitution, and a promise not to be biased. Come to think of it, that’s a good addition to ours too. Let’s steal that.

I’d add the “citizens” bit as a tip of the hat to our large Diaspora. In other words, we swear allegiance to SVG, but we aren’t just talking about the people who live here, we’re talking about all citizens, including you overseas Vincys as well. I know, I know, it’s a nice touch.

I’m flexible on most of the language, as long as country and constitution are mentioned. Even if you added that stuff and left the Queen in there as well, it would be an improvement. Not my first choice, but hey, some people love that wrinkled old white woman.

The point is, changing the Oath is easy, it will be popular, and that the time is ripe.

Let’s do it. Tell a friend to tell a friend. Let’s put SVG at the center of our government, where it belongs. It’s an “owning the government” moment that we can all get behind.

…right?