标签： Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

A decades-long policy rejection of citizenship-by-investment (CBI) has left St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) with up to US$1 billion in unrealized revenue over the past 10 years, according to newly elected Prime Minister Godwin Friday. In a candid interview aired on Hot 97 FM last Friday, the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) — which won general elections in November 2024 after ousting the 25-year incumbent Unity Labour Party (ULP) — opened up about the economic costs of the previous administration’s hardline opposition to CBI programs, noting that fellow Caribbean leaders have repeatedly questioned SVG’s refusal to adopt the popular economic development tool.

During the interview, radio host Luke Boyea shared a striking comment from a senior St. Lucia Labour Party official — a ideological ally of the SVG ULP — who claimed that SVG’s refusal to launch CBI under former Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves had turned the country into a regional laughing stock. Boyea noted that while the ULP made bold public claims about SVG’s economic standing, the absence of CBI revenue left clear gaps in the country’s development progress that were obvious to regional observers.

CBI programs grant foreign nationals full citizenship and a valid national passport in exchange for a substantial contribution to the host country’s economy, usually targeted at infrastructure, social programs, or other public projects. SVG is currently the only one of the five independent member states of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) that does not operate a CBI program. The NDP made the introduction of CBI a core campaign promise during its 2024 election run, and Friday confirmed that the new government remains on track to launch the program within 2025 despite minor delays to some campaign pledges.

Gonsalves, who now serves as leader of the opposition, has maintained his long-standing opposition to CBI, repeatedly framing the program as little more than selling passports. Last year, his public comments labeling CBI an inherently corrupt model drew sharp pushback from Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne, whose country operates one of the region’s most successful CBI programs.

Friday acknowledged that the new administration has delivered on some of its 60-day campaign pledges, while other initiatives have been pushed back to later in the year. He cited ongoing global economic uncertainty stemming from regional conflicts as a key factor that requires responsible policy timing, noting that it would be reckless for the small island nation to ignore shifting global conditions when rolling out new programs.

“It would be irresponsible to simply disregard what’s happening in the world and simply do whatever you like,” Friday said. “As a responsible government, we will consider these global factors as we advance our agenda, but our core strategic objective remains unchanged: we will manage public finances to keep our debt sustainable, meet the basic needs of all Vincentians, and expand investment opportunities to bring renewed prosperity to St. Vincent and the Grenadines.”

Alongside CBI, Friday confirmed that repairs to the derelict Ottley Hall Marina and Shipyard — a flagship project of the last NDP administration that held office from 1984 to 2001, which was left to fall into ruin under the ULP’s 2001–2024 tenure — will move forward this year, with multiple serious investors already expressing interest in the high-potential site. The prime minister also noted that new hotel investment projects are in the pipeline for the island nation, which relies heavily on tourism as a core economic driver.

Responding to criticism of CBI from opposition figures, Friday emphasized that the program offers a unique path to raise government revenue without taking on new debt or increasing domestic taxes. “You’re not borrowing it and you’re not taxing people to get it,” he said, framing the previous administration’s rejection of CBI as a reckless decision that carried massive opportunity costs for the country.

Now that he holds office, Friday said regular conversations with regional peer leaders who operate successful CBI programs have underscored the scale of the missed opportunity. “They’re looking at us like say, ‘Boy, what an opportunity you guys missed,’” he told listeners.

When asked why the ULP spent decades framing CBI as a harmful, unethical practice that the country should avoid, Friday said the media host had correctly identified the core issue: a small group of loud political opponents convinced the public of the narrative, leaving the entire country to bear the economic cost.

As an example of what CBI revenue can fund, Friday pointed to Dominica’s new international airport, a major infrastructure project that has been largely financed by CBI proceeds. Friday’s own estimate places SVG’s cumulative missed revenue over 10 years at up to US$1 billion, a figure that lines up with informal estimates from a fellow regional prime minister, who pegged potential annual revenue at EC$200 million (roughly US$74 million), even the lower projection amounts to substantial unborrowed, untaxed revenue that the country could have used for development.

Friday specifically noted that the US$78 million hospital currently under construction at Arnos Vale, for which the previous ULP government borrowed US$100 million from Taiwan, could have been fully paid for with CBI revenue had the program been adopted years earlier.

Five months into the term of St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ new New Democratic Party administration, a rising wave of criticism has flooded social media, print outlets, and radio airwaves, targeting what critics call a deeply flawed government communication strategy marked by mixed messaging, poor visibility, and a lack of clear national direction. In this weekly opinion column for *A View from the Outside*, social commentator and attorney Guevara Leacock pushes back against these widespread critiques, arguing that most current assessments fail to meet basic standards of analytical rigor by ignoring the broader context of governance, the realities of post-election administrative transition, and the tangible policy outcomes the new government has already delivered.

Leacock argues that the bulk of today’s criticism is rooted in selective observation, premature judgment, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how new administrations function during their early months in office. The core claim that widespread communication breakdown has irreparably damaged the government’s credibility, he notes, relies almost entirely on anecdotal claims of “blunders” and “mixed messages,” with no sustained, verifiable evidence or structured analysis to back up the assertions. Contrary to claims that the administration has gone silent, Leacock points to a steady stream of ongoing public communication: regular ministerial press conferences, the weekly Friday Report, official public notices distributed via the Agency for Public Information, and formal ministerial statements marking major national and international dates, from International Women’s Day to regional observances. Many of these communication practices, he adds, were far less consistent or visible under the previous 25-year administration, despite its self-framing as a progressive governing force.

Critics also misjudge the timeline of governance, Leacock argues. Transition from opposition to ruling power is far more than a simple swap of political faces: it requires realigning entire bureaucratic systems, recalibrating long-standing policy priorities, building new institutional workflows, and reorganizing priorities across every branch of the state machinery. What casual critics dismiss as “unpreparedness,” he says, is actually the ordinary friction that comes with any new administration taking up the reins of national power – a normal part of the governing learning curve, not a sign of systemic collapse.

Leacock also notes that decades of heavily centralized, single-voice public communication under the previous administration have left many Vincentians accustomed to a more performative style of governance, leading them to misread the new government’s quieter, more distributed, deliberative approach to communication. Democracy, he emphasizes, does not always look like constant public command; it often manifests as intentional process, careful coordination, and adaptive adjustment, rather than nonstop rhetoric.

Claims that the administration lacks clear direction also fall flat upon closer examination, Leacock contends. Governing direction is not measured by daily headlines or constant public spectacle; it is embedded in long-term legislative planning, administrative agendas, and policy pipelines that are often not immediately visible to the general public. In fact, the government’s full policy agenda was clearly laid out in the February 2026 Speech from the Throne delivered by Governor-General Sir Stanley John at the opening of Parliament, a public document that remains widely accessible via the Agency for Public Information’s social media channels – an act of official communication that critics consistently ignore.

What many critics are actually demanding, Leacock argues, is not just communication, but a specific performative style of communication: constant public visibility, immediate answers to every question, and nonstop rhetorical display. This model prioritizes optics over governing substance, creating a dangerous temptation to confuse theatrical leadership with effective leadership. Government is not a stage performance, it is deliberate work – and that work is already visible across St. Vincent and the Grenadines: ongoing road repairs, the reinstatement of public officers dismissed under the previous administration’s vaccine mandate, the acquisition of new ambulances, and a measurable rise in public economic confidence. These tangible outcomes are not signs of political drift; they are evidence of steady, effective governance.

Leacock also addresses the common critique that “too little has changed” from the previous administration, noting that continuity in governance is not inherently a failure. Responsible governing requires stability, incremental progress, and intentional continuity rather than constant, disruptive upheaval. Dramatic overnight transformation may satisfy an impatient public, but it risks damaging long-term institutional health and creating lasting national instability. Even with the NDP’s landslide 14-1 electoral mandate secured in November 2025, not every sector of national life can or should be remade overnight: meaningful, lasting change takes time, and serious governing requires patience.

Critics who dismiss Prime Minister Dr. Godwin Friday’s frequent appearances at schools, community gatherings, and sporting events as trivial, symbolic engagements also reveal a narrow view of modern political leadership, Leacock says. In a small democracy like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, consistent civic presence among constituents is not a trivial distraction from governance – it is a core part of building and humanizing political legitimacy. Leadership is not only expressed through formal cabinet meetings, technical briefings, and official statements; it is also demonstrated through proximity to the people the government serves, a standard Friday is already meeting.

The most concrete and reasonable critique, Leacock acknowledges, is the call to appoint a professional government communications strategist to improve coordination. On this point, there is room for agreement: most governments benefit from more centralized, coordinated communication, and the current administration has already publicly announced its plan to hire a communications specialist. Even so, Leacock warns against overstating the role of communication in good governance. Communication can never substitute for solid policy or effective delivery, and it is not the primary metric for judging whether a government is performing well. There is a deep risk, he notes, of communication becoming a replacement for substance: a tool to manage public perception rather than address tangible national challenges, a pattern Vincentians saw firsthand under previous administrations that dominated airwaves with rhetoric while national institutions eroded behind the scenes. Talking alone can only achieve so much: communication matters, but it cannot build roads, reform institutions, stabilize public finances, or restore public trust on its own.

The most glaring gap in most current criticism, Leacock argues, is the near-total absence of engagement with actual policy substance. There is little serious discussion of the administration’s legislative initiatives, administrative reforms, or economic plans, with passing, offhand references to policy replacing rigorous analysis. A government cannot be judged on messaging alone; it must be evaluated by what it actually does, builds, and reforms. To focus almost exclusively on communication is to present a partial, deeply misleading picture of governing performance.

Leacock does concede that many Vincentians have legitimate questions and demands for more information: the public has a right to details about the alleged long-term economic mismanagement of the previous administration, and many are waiting for the promised forensic audit of past government practices. That desire for transparency is completely valid, he notes, but forensic audits by their nature require rigorous, time-consuming examination of state records, conducted while the new government continues to carry out its day-to-day governing responsibilities. Patience in this process is not a sign of weakness, it is a requirement for thorough, accurate work.

In conclusion, Leacock stresses that while questions about communication clarity and coordination are legitimate, the bulk of current criticism is analytically thin and premature, often trading evidence for assertion and rhetoric for balanced analysis. A credible critique of the administration’s communication strategy would situate communication within the broader context of governance, acknowledge the realities of administrative transition, and center policy outcomes over messaging style. Until that kind of rigorous assessment is offered, the repeated calls for the government to “wake up” reveal more about the limitations of the critics than they do about the performance of the young administration.

This column was published by Guevara Leacock, a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn and practicing attorney in St. Vincent and the Grenadines with a focus on history and political commentary, on Saturday 10 April 2026. The opinions expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of iWitness News.

Four months after the New Democratic Party (NDP) swept into power in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, ending 25 years of opposition, Prime Minister Godwin Friday has openly addressed public criticism that his new administration has failed to effectively push back against opposition narratives and communicate its progress to voters. In a candid interview with Hot 97 FM on Friday, the prime minister — who also holds key portfolios including finance, legal affairs, justice, economic planning and private sector development — opened up about the dual challenges his government is navigating: cleaning up the fiscal mess left by the previous Unity Labour Party (ULP) administration and improving public outreach.

Five months into the tenure of the New Democratic Party (NDP) administration led by Prime Minister Godwin Friday, a prominent regional lawyer, journalist and social commentator Jomo Thomas has sounded a public alarm: the new government is in dire need of a skilled professional communications strategist to reverse eroding public credibility.

For weeks, widespread dissatisfaction with the NDP’s disjointed public messaging has bubbled under the surface of political discourse in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, but until now few have voiced the criticism openly. Thomas argues that the era of polite, behind-the-scenes feedback is over, and hard truths must be shared before the government loses what remaining public trust it holds.

In just 20 weeks in office, the administration has accumulated a growing trail of missteps: contradictory statements from different cabinet members, uncoordinated policy announcements, overreaching executive actions, and confirmed instances of public misinformation. While individual incidents may appear trivial on their own, Thomas notes that taken together, they reveal a dangerous pattern of disorganization that the post-election goodwill from the party’s November 2025 decisive electoral victory can no longer obscure.

As the administration approaches its six-month milestone, a clear majority of Vincentians still cannot articulate the government’s core policy priorities or long-term national direction. Even for loyal NDP supporters who may take offense to this assessment, the reality is unavoidable: for many ordinary citizens, the current government feels indistinguishable from the previous Unity Labour Party administration it defeated, carrying over the same policy approaches, leadership styles, and bureaucratic habits. This lack of visible change has left many voters openly questioning what purpose their landslide election win actually served.

From the earliest days of the NDP’s term, political observers warned that while the party ran a vigorous, effective campaign, it entered office unprepared for the day-to-day demands of governing. Supporters of the new administration pushed back at the time, arguing that all new governments face an expected learning period. But Thomas points out that a productive learning curve depends on three key traits: humility to accept gaps in knowledge, discipline to implement structural changes, and willingness to act on feedback – traits he says the current administration has so far lacked, instead leaning into stubbornness and complacency.

Too many incoming cabinet members and political appointees have entered office assuming they already possess the skills needed to govern, Thomas says, rejecting outside guidance or professional support. The outcomes of this overconfidence are already visible to the public.

Persistent public speculation has emerged that Deputy Prime Minister St. Clair Leacock functions as the de facto head of government, even as many dismiss these rumors as unfounded. Notably, the administration’s own poor communication strategy has done nothing to counter this growing public perception. Increasingly, voters only see Prime Minister Friday at low-stakes, image-focused events: school openings, local sports competitions, and other photo-ready public appearances. Thomas stresses that the Office of the Prime Minister is not a prop for social media content; it requires consistent, serious public visibility and clear demonstration of national leadership.

Thomas adds that the current press secretary, while widely recognized as a hardworking contributor during the election campaign, lacks the specialized training and high-level experience required to manage national government communications. This is not a personal criticism, he clarifies, but an objective observation of a critical professional gap that needs addressing. Running communications for an election campaign and coordinating national public messaging for a sitting government are entirely different roles requiring vastly different skill sets.

Voters often criticized former Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves for his overwhelming, omnipresent public profile, Thomas acknowledges, but one clear benefit of that leadership style was that the public always knew exactly where the administration stood on key issues. There was no question who the national leader was, and the entire cabinet aligned behind consistent messaging. Thomas emphasizes that no one is calling for a return to Gonsalves’ authoritarian-style leadership, but effective governance by any administration requires clear, consistent messaging. If Friday is doing the work of leading effectively behind closed doors, that work is completely invisible to the public – and in politics, public perception shapes reality.

The urgent need for a professional communications strategist extends far beyond optimizing social media content, Thomas explains. The new hire would be tasked with coordinating consistent messaging across all government-owned and aligned platforms, including the Agency for Public Information, NBC Radio, VC3 Television, and other state media outlets. Without this coordinated leadership, Thomas warns the NDP administration will continue to be seen as unfocused, reactive to events rather than proactive, and internally divided.

The initial public excitement that followed the NDP’s early policy moves – including the popular VAT-free shopping day and the partial reinstatement of public servants dismissed by the previous administration – has already worn off. Five months in, voters are increasingly asking: what tangible, meaningful change has the government delivered since those opening moves? What is the administration’s long-term plan for the country? Who is actually in charge of setting the national agenda?

Thomas urges the NDP leadership to wake up to a core political reality: governance and political communication cannot be separated. The party’s chances of winning re-election at the end of the term will not depend solely on delivering policy outcomes. It will depend on how well it communicates its vision, how consistently it demonstrates leadership, and how effectively it manages public perception of its work.

It is past time for the NDP to get serious about fixing this critical gap, Thomas says. It is past time for the administration to act. If the party fails to address its communication failures soon, it risks fulfilling the current fears of many political observers: becoming a one-term administration that squandered its electoral mandate before it had a chance to deliver on its promises.

By S. Smith
*This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the official editorial position of iWitness News.*