Licks like peas! (this is a loooong post)

Sometimes, as a little boy, you get a spanking. Daddy puts you over his knee and administers a few staccato smacks to convey his displeasure. It hurts, but not too bad. Other times, mummy is waiting at the door with a supple guava branch switch, and the blows rain down from all angles, and you are running, and covering, and hiding, and crying, and wondering what the hell happened, and why is mummy so vex.

Politically, last week’s “no” vote, was definitely the latter. A real "cut ass."

56% to 43% is as resounding as it gets in SVG. Don’t let anybody tell you any different. As far as I know, the only time more Vincentians agreed on anything in a voting booth is when the NDP won all 15 seats in the country. The 12-3 ULP landslide of 2001 was also a 56% majority.

This was a beating.

Now, in the last days of the referendum campaign, I could see that the “yes” was not going to get the required 67% of the vote. But I was certain that they would get the majority of the votes! In fact, if you asked me on the eve of the election, you could have gotten me to predict something in the range of 59% - 62% “yes.”

Just goes to show how little I know.

Maybe it was the Busy Signal show – the biggest crowd in SVG I’ve ever seen. Maybe it was another huge crowd the next day at Rabbacca. Maybe it was the fact that everything that the “no” voters said sounded so angry, and so bitter, and so unrelated to the merits of the constitution, which, in my opinion, remains a pretty good document. I dunno. But I clearly misread the mood of Vincentians.

But I’m not alone in that misreading. If the government thought that 43% was even possible, no way they go through with this referendum. They must have assumed that their floor was something in the mid-50s, with a ceiling in the mid-60s. Otherwise, why even try? And throughout their campaign, they remained resolutely on the high ground, extolling the virtues of the constitution and resisting the mudslinging from the other side. (The only possible exception to this was the Oakes Bros./SCL/passport selling revelations. But I think that was relevant to the constitutional debate as well). You only maintain the high ground if you’re sure that you’re winning or you’re sure that you’ve already lost. I gotta think that they were feeling pretty good about themselves, up until the last minute.

I waited to type this post, first because I was in shock, and second, because I wanted to see the data. I’ve studied it. It aint pretty. Let’s analyse, shall we?

Question #1: What does this “no” vote mean?

This is the $6 million question. The easiest (and wrongest) answer is: “it means that the people of SVG are fully satisfied with their present constitution.” Problem with that answer is that only one side was even talking about the constitution. The other side made this a referendum on the government, no matter what the question on the ballot paper said. In many ways, both sides were talking past each other.

So does the “no” vote mean that Vincentians are dissatisfied with the government? Some of it clearly means exactly that. Many of those who voted “no” were voting against Ralph. Maybe even most of them. But some were also voting against getting rid of the queen. Some were voting out of fear of change. Some were voting against Hugo Chavez (don’t ask). How many? I don’t know. And neither do you.

Was it simply a general expression of dissatisfaction in a rough economic period? Was it a specific attempt to send the ULP a message? Was it a harbinger of the next general election? I don’t know. And I suspect no one will know for sure until we can look back with the benefit of a few years’ hindsight. Sure, everyone is spinning it for their own purposes, but its all hopeful spinning. We’re all flying blind here. This has never happened before in SVG.

Question #2: Will some of the “good ideas” be implemented legislatively?

The “no” voters tried to deflate many of the innovations in the new constitution by saying “you can do that through regular legislation.” So whenever someone said Integrity Commission, Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman, gay marriage, etc., their rejoinder was “big deal! You can do that through regular legislation!” (of course, other things that could be done through regular legislation – details of local gov’t, details of constituency funding, details of land compensation, etc. – the “no” voters wanted included in the constitution, but I digress).

So the question now is: What chance is there that these things will become part of our regular laws?

My guess? Somewhere between slim and none. The problem with regular legislation is that new administrations invariably alter it. NDP passes a law selling passports? ULP abolishes it? NDP passes “greedy bill?” ULP abolishes it. Old Labour Party passed a law on local government? NDP gutted it. NDP passes law on education? ULP amends it. And so on.

So why would I, as an incumbent government, pass a law that will constrain me, that can easily be modified when I leave? Especially when I now have a great excuse not to pass such laws – “What was that? You want an integrity commission? Well, so did we, but that concept was overwhelmingly rejected by the Vincentian people in Nov. 2009.” And who will we, the voters, be, to tell them no? We did vote against it! Similarly, you can kiss reduced powers of the Prime Minister goodbye. When next the PM handpicks some top civil servant, his response to the hue and cry will be “I wanted to give up this power, but the Vincentian people told me that they trust the PM to use it effectively.” I can see it now…

My gut tells me that the reform most likely to be implemented is the two new constituencies. That is something else that can be done with just a parliamentary majority. If I’m the ULP right now, back against the wall, I’m carving out a couple new safe seats. (And for all those who thought that the new constitution said the new boundaries commission couldn’t be challenged in court but the old one could – go ahead and try.)

(Allow me to digress again: did anyone notice that 2,390 people voted in the Northern Grenadines and 1,506 voted in the Southern? For a total of 3,896 people? Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that a Grenadines voter’s vote counts for twice as much as a mainlander? More people voted in North Windward, East St. George, East Kingstown, and South Leeward than did those in both Grenadines seats combined. Yet they only get to pick one representative, and the Grenadines pick two. Put another way, 1,200 votes in the Southern Grenadines is a landslide victory. Same amount in East St. George is a landslide defeat. Mainland votes are very diluted compared to Grenadines votes. It’s also why it’s so easy for the NDP to form a government with less than a majority of the popular vote. 3,000 NDP votes get you two seats in the Grenadines. It gets you one on the mainland. Making the Grenadines two seats was a crude and cynical political ploy unsupported by any demographic data. Glad I got that off my chest, lol)

Question #3: What does this mean for the 2010 elections?

The easiest (and wrongest) answer is that it means that the NDP will win 13 seats to the ULP’s 2, because the “no” vote was in the majority in 13 of the 15 constituencies. The second easiest (and second wrongest) answer is that it means nothing, that “ULP voters” stayed home, and that the election is a different kettle of fish.

Lets look at the numbers, shall we?

29,019 people voted “no.” Twenty-nine thousand votes aint gonna win you a “real” election in SVG. In 2005, the winners got 32,006. In 2001, they got 32,925. In 2005, the losers got 25,653 – only 3,336 less than the “no” vote got last week.

And, keep in mind, that 6,690 new voters have registered between 2005 and now.

In short, if every single “no” goes to the polls and votes NDP in 2010, that doesn’t get them a win. They probably need to find another 4,000 votes on top of that.

Of course, its easier to find 4,000 votes than it is to find 10,500, which is what the ULP will probably need to hold on to office. Because if 29,000 votes don’t win an election, 22,500 isn’t looking so promising either.

But the excuse that “ULP voters didn’t come out”  is just that – an excuse. NDP support increased from 2001 to 2005 by 1,809 votes, while ULP fell by 919. You can say that 919 voters stayed home. I’ll buy that. But you can’t tell me that 9,500 voters stayed home. If that many of "your supporters" stayed home, they don’t support you anymore.

I agree that voter turnout was low. In 2001, 58,398 people voted. In 2005, 57,958 went to the polls – a slight dip of 440 (even though voter registration increased). In the referendum, 52,156 voted. That’s 5,802 less than voted in 2005, and 6,242 less than 2001 (not counting the 6,690 new voters who’ve registered).

Here’s where the ULP “apathetic voter” argument gets a little shaky: In the referendum, 6,242 less people voted (compared to 2001) and “yes” got 6,526 votes less than “no.” Almost the same number, eh? But are you telling me that EVERYONE who stated home from the referendum is a ULP supporter?!? And even if that’s true, odds are that the 6,690 new voters since the last election are probably more pro-NDP than pro-ULP, because new voters tend to be more pro-opposition than pro-incumbent.

So, for the next election, out of a pool of about 13,000 voters (stay-at-homes plus new registrants), the ULP needs about 70% of them to vote incumbent. That’s a tall order.

I will, however, accept that the low turn-out suggests that more of those who stayed home were ULP fans than NDP fans. That seems logical. Opposition voters are always more passionate and eager to stick it in the eye of the incumbents. So I can accept that the ULP will be more competitive in the general elections than the “yes” vote was in the referendum.

Where will they compete? If I accept that ULP voters did not show up, and that they will show up in an election, I have to look at constituencies where “yes” got a percentage in the mid- to high- 40s.  Stay-at-homes could turn that around. Immediately, then, I would concede East Kingstown (38% yes), Central Kingstown (35%), West Kingstown (35), South Leeward (38), North Leeward (39), Northern Grenadines (15) and Southern Grenadines (31) – it would be a whole lot of reenergized ULP supporters to turn that around.

But that’s only seven seats. Seven seats don’t win you an election in SVG.

(another aside: did anyone else notice that Arnhim Eustace's East Kingstown Seat got the smallest referendum "bounce" out of the three Kingstown seats?)

ULP’s “stay at home” referendum voters could make a difference in North Windward (48% yes), South Central Windward (46%), Marriaqua (49%), East St. George (44%), West St. George (44%), and Central Leeward (45%). Of course, the ULP would be counting on North Central Windward (74% yes) and South Windward (52%), as “safe” seats.

(yet another aside: although South Windward was only one of two seats that went "yes," did you notice that, in real numbers, it experienced the biggest swing towards the "no"/NDP side? South Windward was actually the seat with the biggest slippage)

So, if everything broke in the ULP’s favour in the next 12 months, and they got their apathetic voters energised, they’re looking at an 8-7 win. But that, too, is a tall order.

The next year is gonna be interesting.

Question #4: Is constitutional reform in SVG dead?

Yep. Deader than dead. Stick a fork in it. We won’t be reforming our constitution until the Privy Council kicks us out. Or the British end the monarchy. Or gay couples are getting married on Young Island. This is the one we’re stuck with.