A buoyant Opposition Leader, Philip J Pierre, flanked by five of his Labour Stars, would debate a predictably ill-fated motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Allen Chastanet. The motion’s defeat in the Lower House was guaranteed because Chastanet commanded 11 MPs to Pierre’s meek 6, but the scores of yellow-wearing, Flambeau-placard-brandishing supporters would suggest otherwise. Could it have really been anyone’s game, and would the country be poised for an election in 21 days? Hardly. But according to Pierre, a few days after the House sitting (and even now, almost a decade and a successive election victory later), the battle was lost, but not the war.
Democracy levies a heavy price on any political movement that cannot secure the 50-plus-1 dictates of Westminster, and, short of haranguing their government counterparts in the Parliament, opposition MPs are largely considered to be far removed from the levers of power. Unless an opposition can come out the other end of a general election with the sweeter end of the parliamentary stick in its mouth, there is hardly ever any conceivable success for them.
Yet, here Pierre was, inscrutable as he usually is, behind the lenses of his sunglasses, a grin plastered on his face, post-sitting.
“Our point was made…our struggle continues,” said Pierre in a January 31 interview with TeleSUR’s Saint Lucia correspondent, Alison Kentish.
The harvest of the December 1, 2025, elections returned 16 SLP-backed MPs to the House, while only 1 UWP MP comprises the opposition. Since then, commentators averse to the SLP regime have lamented what they call a threat to the island’s democracy. Opposition Leader Chastanet himself is also claiming that democracy is under threat by the government.
“During the debate on the Estimates of Revenue & Expenditure, the Prime Minister prematurely brought the debate to a close, denying three of his own senior ministers the opportunity to contribute, all in a blatant attempt to prevent me from making my contribution on the Budget,” wrote Chastanet in a March 30 post to his Facebook page, to which he attached an open letter to Prime Minister Pierre.
Politicians, aspiring or actual, derive their legitimacy from their presence in the Parliament, and arguably, the more coveted seats in the Lower House for elected MPs. Section 21 of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly of Saint Lucia provides:
“Subject to section 48 of the Saint Lucia Constitution Order in Council 1978 and to these Standing Orders, any Member may propose by way of motion any matter for debate in the House.”
It was on this basis that then Opposition Leader Pierre founded his motion of no confidence in then Prime Minister Chastanet.
“This is about the performance of the Prime Minister to date, and for Members to seize the opportunity to stem the destruction he is causing to the destruction of our country by voting ‘Yes’ in support of the no-confidence motion,” asserted Pierre in the House.
He continued: “The Prime Minister has demonstrated from time to time that his words cannot be trusted. In his first budget address as Minister of Finance, he declared the fiscal year the year of execution, little did he realise the damage that was to follow…he heartlessly executed the NICE programme…”
Whether Pierre’s remarks are found in absolute fact, fluffed fact, or full fiction is for the reader to decide in their own judgment of the day’s government. Undisputed, though, is the fact that these assertions are the same as those uttered on political talk shows by the Labour Party’s most loyal soldiers; the same as those uttered by the Party’s officials in fairly attended press conferences. What makes all the difference is that the most-remembered remarks are the ones spoken by Pierre and recorded by Hansard in the Parliament.
And perhaps, then, the Opposition’s success was found not in the roarful, disapproving vote by the government’s 11 MPs, but in every privilege-protected bombardment against Chastanet in the House, to his face. Perhaps, too, the success lies in the media coverage by regional outlets that would not ordinarily have carried a Pierre v Chastanet story, but certainly would have carried a motion whose sole purpose was to levy words against a sitting Prime Minister in the highest office in the land.
Sitting House Speaker Claudius Francis, who “knows a thing or two” about the Standing Orders, was engaged for his perspective in the writing of this editorial.
JT: What do you say are the parliamentary processes available to MPs in general?
House Speaker Claudius Francis: The Standing Orders are, in fact, MPs' best friend. It gives a lot of latitude; it allows you to register your thoughts, your feelings, protests, even when you're in the most minute minority.
JT: Obviously, it was, it was not going to pass, but the opposition leader at the time, Philip J. Pierre, brought his concerns to the Parliament.
House Speaker Claudius Francis: But was the motion ever about succeeding? I doubt it. It was more about putting on record officially the disappointment with the Prime Minister and his administration. Whether or not that disappointment was meritorious is besides the point. The point is, they did put their disappointment in hindsight. Historians will in the future have that record to give an historical perspective to.
Returning now to the current opposition’s predicament, commanding only one MP, what should be Chastanet’s recourse?
For starters, he should not shy away from the opportunity to attend House sittings and formally register his dissatisfaction with government policy, critique proposed legislation in a meaningful way, and, where necessary, creatively subject the government to broadside partisan attack. He should arm himself with Standing Order 34 ((Points of) Interruptions) and be poised to “Mr Speaker, Point of Order” any government MP; and certainly, be ready to defend his argument.
Few would forget the period spanning 1982 to 1997 when Sir John Compton held the reins of government firmly in his grasp. Speaker Francis, who has certainly not forgotten, revises this period and notes that Sir Julian Hunte was a mischievously creative MP.
House Speaker Claudius Francis: In fact, if you go back to 1987, when now Sir Julian Hunte was Opposition Leader, I actually wrote a commentary in the Star newspaper one time that up to that time, Julian Hunte had been the most creative user of the standing orders in Parliament from independence. Julian Hunte was a master at using the standing orders to his advantage, an absolute master. And that is what opposition and government [too], for that matter, must do. The standing orders are there.
An example can be taken from recently-retired Vieux Fort South MP, Dr Kenny Anthony, who, despite his party’s victory at the 2021 poll, chose to remain a ‘back-bencher’ - a government MP without a ministerial portfolio. During his retirement address on May 21, 2025, Dr Anthony disagreed with the thinking that every government MP must be made a cabinet member.
“I said to you that this thinking is myopic, it is simplistic, and it is archaic. Just look at the United Kingdom! The Parliament… has a membership of over 650 elected members. But they have a cabinet of 30 to 40 members,” Dr Anthony had said.
It appears that, to him at least, the greatest merit lies in an elected representative’s ability to stand in the House of Assembly and lobby for their constituents. Much the same can be said for the opposition, whether they have an intimidating 8 MPs or a simple 1.
By John Tristan Tench