标签： Dominica

Against the backdrop of a heated by-election for the Marigot constituency seat, an unsigned open letter has sparked national reflection on the declining state of democratic norms and growing social fracture across Dominica. As the island nation navigates a critical crossroads in its political evolution, the author draws urgent attention to a rising tide of intolerance, bitter partisan rivalry and internal strife that has seeped into every layer of Dominican life — from politics and civil society to religious institutions, leaving communities deeply divided along party lines.

The letter frames this moment as more than a fight for electoral victory or political leadership: it is a generational test of the values that underpin a healthy, functional democracy. “Every nation, every community, and every generation faces moments when its core values are put to the test,” the author writes. “Sometimes these tests arrive through crisis or conflict, sometimes through the quiet accumulation of small, unremarkable choices that slowly reshape a people’s national character.”

Beyond the mechanics of regular voting, the author argues that democracy is a sustained practice and shared discipline that requires all members of society to uphold the principle that no individual, party or political movement stands above the law, above truth, or above the inherent dignity of every citizen. For this system to thrive, it depends on robust, independent institutions that can withstand partisan pressure and hold themselves accountable: independent judiciaries that rule without political interference, journalists empowered to ask tough questions of power, public servants who prioritize national duty over partisan loyalty, and citizens who recognize that freedom means more than cheering for one’s own side when it wins.

A core measure of a society’s health, the text notes, is how it treats people who hold different views. It is simple to claim unity when everyone already agrees; the real test comes when we face rivals, critics and opponents who challenge our most deeply held beliefs. The author emphasizes that political opposition does not make someone an enemy: opponents remain fellow citizens who share the same communities, same public spaces, same hopes and same collective future. When we lose sight of that basic truth, politics devolves into a zero-sum war where victory overshadows the common good.

This framework does not demand moral equivalence between all ideas, nor does it call for silence in the face of corruption, discrimination, abuse of power or violence. Instead, it requires citizens and leaders alike to respond in ways that strengthen democratic institutions rather than tear them down. Long-held political norms, traditions of peaceful power transition, respect for independent bodies, and the willingness to negotiate with people we disagree with are not empty ceremonial gestures — they are the structural framework that holds public trust together. When these norms erode, damage builds gradually: one insult, one distortion of truth, one abuse of power, one refusal to accept a fair electoral result at a time, until one day the public wakes to find that trust in the system has vanished entirely.

The letter redefines the meaning of public leadership: holding office is not a form of ownership, but a temporary stewardship. Leaders are caretakers of institutions that existed long before they took power, and will continue long after they leave. The conduct, language and restraint of public officials therefore matter deeply: how leaders talk about opponents, judges, journalists, marginalized groups and ordinary citizens sets the standard for acceptable public behavior. When leaders mock, divide, threaten and demean others, they do not only harm individual people — they erode the shared moral standards that keep public life functional, a standard that all citizens ought to uphold.

Serious policymaking is also a core pillar of responsible governance, the author argues. Decisions that shape national security, public health, education, economic development, climate action and justice cannot be reduced to catchy slogans or tools for personal rivalries. Every policy debate has real, tangible consequences for real families, workers and communities across the country. Responsible governance demands more than winning political arguments: it requires evidence-based decision-making, patience, honesty, and accountability for both successes and failures. Public service is not a performance for social media or rallies — it is a solemn duty.

On the question of national unity, the author rejects the common idea that unity requires eliminating all disagreement. Instead, unity is a deliberate choice to remain committed to shared rules, mutual dignity and collective responsibility even when disagreements run deep. It rests on the unifying truth that all Dominicans share a common future, whether they like it or not. The author acknowledges that there will always be actors who profit from political division, who gain attention by humiliating opponents, spreading fear and stoking resentment on every issue, but a healthy society cannot survive on perpetual outrage or governance through contempt.

The harder, more honorable path forward is the one the letter endorses: listening to others without abandoning core convictions, debating differences without throwing away mutual respect, compromising on policy without betraying core principles, and opposing wrongdoing without surrendering one’s own commitment to decency. This collective responsibility does not fall only on elected leaders and public officials, the author stresses — it belongs to every Dominican. Every citizen shapes the tone of national public life: every conversation, every vote, every choice to refuse to spread hate, every act of speaking truth matters.

The letter closes with a call to reject both cynicism and despair. Cynicism — the belief that all leaders are the same, that nothing can change, that truth does not matter, that institutional reform is impossible and that participation is pointless — may feel comfortable, but it is ultimately an act of surrender. Despair, meanwhile, forgets that every major advance in rights, reform, justice and freedom was won by people who kept working even when progress seemed impossible.

The author urges all Dominicans to show up for democracy: engage when possible, vote where it matters, speak out against injustice, organize for change, defend vulnerable communities, hold power to account, protect truth, and demand better from both the people you support and the people you oppose. “A society is not held together by perfect agreement,” the author writes. “It is held together by people who understand that disagreement must have boundaries, that power must have limits, that freedom must come with responsibility, and that human dignity must never depend on which side wins.”

This work of rebuilding democratic trust and unity is not easy, the author acknowledges. It is often slow, frustrating and imperfect. But it is the work that keeps communities free, institutions honest, and hope alive. If Dominicans can do this work together — across their differences, across their disappointments, across their fears — they can build a public life that is worthy of all the people it is meant to serve.

A long-simmering dispute over the integrity and independence of Dominica’s electoral system has escalated, with prominent local figure Gregor Nassief formally announcing plans to refer longstanding public confidence concerns to regional and international election monitoring bodies after Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit repeatedly dismissed calls for reform.

For decades, Dominican voters and political observers have flagged a consistent set of vulnerabilities that erode trust in the country’s election outcomes. These longstanding issues include bloated voter rolls, questionable voting practices involving long-term overseas residents and transient flown-in voters, insufficient identity verification protocols, widespread reports of vote-buying and campaign finance violations, and uneven enforcement of electoral rules, all compounded by persistent public doubt that the Electoral Commission can act as an impartial referee free from political influence.

Nassief emphasizes that the independence of the commission is non-negotiable for legitimate elections. Without a publicly trusted body committed to enforcing rules fairly and addressing systemic abuses, disputes will continue to plague every election cycle, and any close result will inevitably face widespread suspicion of manipulation. The 2019 general election, the last fully contested national vote, underscored just how high the stakes of these weaknesses are: official results showed five constituencies – Castle Bruce, La Plaine, Mahaut, Morne Jaune, and Wesley – were decided by margins of less than 8%, where even minor lapses in enforcing residency rules, voter list integrity or anti-bribery laws could swing the final outcome.

On June 8, Nassief and other stakeholders issued a formal public appeal to Skerrit to support a reset of the Electoral Commission, after public confidence in its impartiality and independence collapsed. The appeal focused on concrete, documented problems rather than unsubstantiated rumors: a more than one-year suspension of voter registration that threatened to disenfranchise new voters ahead of upcoming local elections, the ongoing failure to issue legally required voter identification cards, overt political interference in the commission’s operational space, and premature public framing of an October 14, 2026 deadline for voter confirmation that incorrectly implied the commission had no legal discretion to adjust the timeline.

Two days later, at a June 10 press conference, Skerrit did not address any of the specific concerns raised. Instead, he dismissed allegations of political interference and eroded public trust as political distractions and “smoke screens”, told voters to proceed with the voter confirmation process as planned, and claimed the issue was “out of my hands”. He also asserted that he represents more Dominicans than any other individual and challenged critics to prove their claims of institutional failure.

Nassief pushes back against these remarks, arguing that no single political leader – no matter their electoral success – has the right to dismiss valid public concerns out of hand. Confidence in elections cannot be measured by the comfort of the incumbent government, he says; it must be measured by whether voters across all political factions believe the rules are applied fairly, transparently, and without favoritism.

The facts behind the concerns are unambiguous, Nassief argues: voter registration was indeed suspended for more than 12 months, a period that overlapped with local government elections that locked out newly eligible voters from participating. The voter confirmation process launched with well-documented administrative failures and slow processing speeds. The Registration of Electors Act legally requires the Chief Registering Officer to issue voter ID cards to all approved registered electors, yet thousands of approved voters still wait for their cards to this day.

Critically, the appeal is not a call for voter boycotts – it is the opposite. Nassief stresses that every eligible Dominican should complete registration and confirmation, but maximum voter participation can only be achieved when the public trusts the process. Voters should not be expected to participate blindly, with questions about fairness, administrative competence and institutional independence brushed aside as irrelevant.

Claims of political interference are also not baseless, Nassief notes. The Electoral Commission Act enshrines the body as fully independent, not subject to direction or control from any individual or government authority. But public records show repeated instances where Skerrit has spoken on the commission’s behalf, intervened in its operational decisions, defended its legal violations, secured unrequested external support for it, and shaped public expectations of its deadlines and procedures. This consistent blurring of lines between the executive branch and the supposedly independent electoral body is the natural root of public doubt, not unfounded mischief.

Skerrit’s claim that the electoral process is “out of my hands” is particularly inconsistent with recent history, Nassief argues. On a prior occasion when the government deemed intervention necessary, the commission’s supposed untouchable independence was set aside immediately. Public records confirm that Skerrit stepped in to direct the commission to reinstate birth certificates as a valid form of voter identification in specific cases – a move that had broad public support, but clearly demonstrated that the commission has not asserted its constitutionally mandated independent space. Nassief says it is therefore not credible for the executive to shape electoral procedures informally when it suits political goals, then disclaim any responsibility for restoring public confidence when systemic failures emerge.

Dominica’s existing legal framework already grants the Electoral Commission broad discretionary authority over voter registration, confirmation, roll revisions, special registration windows and timeline adjustments. The law also specifies that if an election writ is issued mid-confirmation process, a transitional voter roll will be used, and the roll is frozen to changes until after polling day. The House of Assembly Elections Act designates voter ID cards as the primary voting document, with a secondary pathway for voters without cards to prove identity via other official documents and a sworn oath. In short, the law already gives the commission enormous power to shape election outcomes – if the commission is weak, error-prone or distrusted, that power does not reassure voters; it amplifies the risk of unfair results.

In his June 8 letter, Nassief closed with an appeal directly to Skerrit, writing “As the arbitrator of all things in Dominica, the reset is entirely in your hands. I appeal to you to act.” Skerrit’s June 10 response did not dispute the core facts, acknowledge any institutional failures, or outline a plan to rebuild public trust. Instead, it effectively told the Dominican public to accept the status quo and move forward. Nassief argues that a government cannot demand public acceptance when it has not earned public confidence, and a prime minister cannot claim to speak for all the people while dismissing the concerns that the people are raising.

Now, after Skerrit’s clear refusal to address the concerns raised across seven consecutive open letters, Nassief is escalating the issue by formally referring the full set of concerns to regional and international election observation bodies, including the Organization of American States, CARICOM, and the Commonwealth Secretariat. This step is not intended to discourage voter participation, he stresses – it is intended to protect it. Every eligible Dominican deserves the chance to participate in an electoral process that commands public trust, with an independent commission that addresses the historic flaws that have undermined Dominican elections for decades.

“Since we can no longer rely on you to address these concerns, we will appeal to others to give them the closest possible attention,” Nassief writes. He adds that the issue will not be dropped, because the commission’s full independence remains unfulfilled, its unconstitutional errors are documented and unaddressed, close election margins amplify every systemic weakness, and the Dominican people deserve an electoral process that is not just technically legal, but genuinely credible, impartial, and worthy of public trust.