Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
Everyone may think of United St. Maarten Party (USP) leader Frans Richardson what they want. Elected into Parliament on the slate of National Alliance (NA) in 2010, he left the party and kept his seat.
Together with the other independent parliamentarians Romain Laville and Patrick Illidge who had broken with respectively United People's (UP) party and NA, he orchestrated the so-called "Carnival coup" of 2012 to bring about a change in government that lasted one year.
Richardson then established USP, which earned two seats in its first election of September 2014. That same night he was part of an NA/DP/USP coalition accord that later fell apart because DP parliamentarian Cornelius de Weever "jumped ship" to support a UP-led government, followed by USP's Leona Marlin-Romeo doing the same thing.
USP too joined this coalition last January and received the Justice portfolio, but with an understanding that current Minister of Justice Dennis Richardson would remain in office at least another year. Despite that, USP has now requested that he resign because he signed the Integrity Chamber Protocol without informing the party (see Saturday paper).
The thing is that Minister Richardson already has stated he would step down only if a majority in the legislature sent him home. What's more, Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs warned that the entire cabinet backed the protocol and any motion of no-confidence against Richardson on this issue would regard all its five members.
It is therefore remarkable that USP persists. The party leader is experienced enough to realise that the UP-led coalition has 10 out of 15 seats, so the loss of one or even two would not cause a real problem.
But the protocol and the draft ordinance on which it is based are still to be debated as requested by the Gumbs cabinet more than a week ago. The fact that no date has yet been set could indicate others within the coalition may have problems with the proposal that the Netherlands made a "take it or leave it" proposition to avoid a General Measure of Kingdom Governance.
One can hardly deny the political reality that were a majority to reject what's now on table, the position of Minister Richardson would be seriously undermined even without a no-confidence motion. Some might go as far as saying it would be difficult for him to stay in office under those circumstances, having stuck his neck out by signing the agreement.
People could argue that the entire cabinet is accountable, as Gumbs himself pointed out, but unlike the former Executive Council with its collective responsibility, ministers are actually to a great extent individually responsible. Perhaps the USP leader knows something many don't?
