By Elesha George
It’s no secret that persuasion of electorates is a significant part of the election course in Antigua and Barbuda, or in any other country for that matter.
We’ve all heard the stories, of political hopefuls “helping” constituents, more so those who are registered to vote.
And while it can be frowned upon as “unethical” behaviour, the ability to prove and prosecute a person for engaging in what the country’s Representation of the People Act deems “unlawful” is indeed a long shot in the twin island state.
Take for example the actions of Prime Minister Gaston Browne, who last Saturday was filmed handing out money to people in his constituency, while making what some would consider an intentional effort to crash an opposition campaign initiative.
Even after seeing various videos and pictures, the general response from onlookers was that “every politician does it”.
But the question remains why they get away with it and the answer is quite simple – it takes a concerted effort and a whole lot of legal arguments to see a matter like this through the courts.
“Even the mark of treating, it is a very, very high mark to meet,” remarked Loftus Durand, President of the Concerned Citizens Movement in Dominica, which supported a bribery and treating case against the Dominica Labour Party (DLP) after the country’s 2019 general elections.
There, the opposition United Workers Party (UWP) filed 10 election petitions accusing a politician – who won a seat at the December 6 2019 election – of having dual citizenship. Others allegedly bribed and treated their way to victory and imported voters to vote for the DLP.
“The judges, when they looked at the case, they said basically that the evidence was not strong enough because they couldn’t see where somebody attending an event of that nature at a function like that was so induced to work for a political party,” Durand explained.
One look at the Antigua and Barbuda’s Representation of the People Act 1975 and a voter would also shy away from bringing any case of bribery or treating before a court or election official.
It states that “every elector or proxy for an elector who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment or provision shall also be guilty of treating”.
It is the same in Dominica, where persons who may have received these treats and bribes were reluctant to come forward, as they too would have been accused of unlawful conduct.
“If you receive a bribe, and you are going to court and say ‘yes, I received a bribe,’ the law says you’re also guilty of an offence … it’s like shooting themselves in the foot,” Durand said.
While the group lost the case, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) – Dominica’s highest court of appeal – did acknowledge that there were individual acts of corruption taking place, and made a recommendation of electoral reform which is currently underway with the assistance of retired judge and former CCJ president, Denis Byron.
On the instance of bribery, sections five and six of chapter 41 of Antigua’s election law states, in the case of bribery, that, “(5) A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees to or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting”.
It also states “(6) A person shall be guilty of bribery if after an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting or having induced any other to vote or refrain from voting”.
In this instance, perhaps the first issue that one will run into is the timing of when the monies were being distributed in the case of Prime Minister Browne.
Political analyst Peter Wickham called the claims “farfetched”.
He told Observer, “In order for you to make a case of bribery that is binding, there has to be a pending election or imminent election and, as it stands now, the election is not imminent until pending March which is the outside date”.
A person, he said, would have to make a solid argument that the Prime Minister was soliciting votes using cash as bribery for an election that is not constitutionally due until March 2023.
“And then there would have to be a situation where the Prime Minister said ‘I am giving you this money to vote for me, or I’m giving you this money on condition that you vote for me’,” said Wickham.
The societal makeup of small islands also plays a role in determining what is treating or bribery and what is assistance.
“The idea of giving assistance and basically expressing generosity is something that politicians are entitled to do; what they’re not entitled to do is to make that a condition of their support,” he explained.
Wickham said that such activities are hard to legislate as they require both the giver and the receiver to admit to participating in the act.
“Even in situations where money is given on election day, you can say that money was given but once you can’t make that link between monies given and votes given, you have some challenges,” he added.
In spite of those challenges, Wickham said legislative change is not necessary to police these matters even if it is “a very difficult thing to prosecute”.
“I wouldn’t go as far as saying that the election laws in Antigua are weak … the election laws are actually stronger than a lot of others in the Caribbean,” he said, noting that local laws speak to the declaration of election financing.
“I think that you would be wasting time trying to design laws that speak to those issues,” he noted.
While opposition members have criticised the Prime Minister’s actions on Saturday as “callous” and “very unfortunate,” ABLP Chairman Chet Greene told Observer on Monday that he does not consider it to be vote buying.
“You can clearly see that money is requested from the Prime Minister and he merely obliges. As those of means, we are expected to give what we have to those who do not have,” he said.
Browne himself has scoffed at the suggestion of impropriety, posting to Facebook after the incident: “They [opposition politicians] bought $5 drinks for their supporters; I gave my supporters money to buy their drinks. Their $5 gift is morally acceptable, but according to their false logic, my gift constitutes a ‘bribe’.”
He added, “Tell them UPP losers, laggards and charlatans, get a blasted life. The latter is a mild version of what I would really like to tell them.”