I ended my last article, “I am Chief Minister, if you don’t like it get out’a here” by quoting the chorus of the Mighty Sparrow’s classic calypso “Get to Hell Outa Here”. The Mighty Sparrow did a masterful job of capturing the tendency for Dr. Eric Williams to perform as the “strong man” in the national politics ofTrinidad and Tobago, and as the head of its Government, towering over everyone else. From 1955 to 1981, when he passed away at age 69, he dominatedTrinidad and Tobagopolitics. Williams is acknowledged as the architect of the independence ofTrinidad and Tobago, achieved in August 1962. That earned him the title of “father” ofTrinidad and Tobago’s independence.
You ask, what does the pre- and the post-independence experience ofTrinidad and Tobago, under Eric Williams, have to do with independence for us Anguillians? The answer is that we can learn, and should learn, from the progress of other countries within and outside of theCaribbean, to their independence, peacefully or through armed struggle. Most important for us, at this time, is to examine the post independence fortunes of countries. In the vast majority of cases their post independence histories do not present “pretty” pictures.
Chief Minister Hubert Hughes has been on again, off again, and on again talking about takingAnguillainto independence. In his present “on again” phase, he is trying to sell independence as a means of solving the challenges that his Government is facing. These include especially the hostile relations (largely of his own making) between him and the British Government represented principally by the Governor. He is also seeking to present independence as a means to access a flood of foreign aid, and development capital, that would enableAnguillato leapfrog into sustainable development and join the group of high income countries, with no negative consequences and downside risks. He is trying to represent to the people of Anguilla that independence is a cure all for whatever he perceives to be the ills and the hindrances, preventing him from spinning the “straw into gold” that he promised all Anguilla, two years ago, in the run up to the General Elections.
Eight years after independence, Dr. Williams faced a 1970 attempted coup by units of the Country’s armed forces. The coup failed because the majority of the armed forces remained loyal to the Government. Williams faced extremely risky and dangerous political turmoil at the time, built up in the eight years after he had taken over the reins as Prime Minister of an independentTrinidad and Tobago.
Perhaps his authoritarian style of governing greatly contributed to the political crisis into which the country was plunged, ultimately resulting in the attempted coup. A precedent was set. So again, in 1990, nine years after the death of Williams another coup attempt, by radical muslims, relatively recent converts to Islam. Since then, the social fabric ofTrinidad and Tobagohas been severely strained with the growth of a subculture of gangs, drugs and violence. All this in a country blessed with valuable oil and natural gas resources. What doesAnguillaposses on which to survive economically?
Trinidad and Tobago’s political landscape still bears the mark of Williams’ authoritarian rule as interpreted by the Mighty Sparrow:
“Who the hell is you to jump and quarrel?
Look PNM is mine, lock stock and barrel
Who give you the privilege to object?
Pay you taxes, shut up and have some respect.
I am a tower of strength
I am powerful but modest,
Unless I am forced to be blunt and ruthless.
So shut up and don’t squark
This ent no skylark.
When I talk no damn dog bark”.
Dr. Eric Williams was a highly learned man who understood the forces that have shaped ourCaribbean, particularly the role of slavery and the slave trade and the impact of colonialism. And yet for all his scholarship, experience and political skill, for all his political education sessions, teaching the people in his unique public lectures atWoodford Square, famously called the “university of Woodford Square”, he was unable to deeply embed the roots of democracy into the political soil ofTrinidad and Tobago. He was unable to anchor the democratic principles in the bedrock of a strong, truly national democratic political culture, embraced by all citizens of the Country. And soTrinidad and Tobagodid not avoid the experience of political groups succumbing to the temptation to resort to armed, violent and undemocratic political means to change a democratically elected government. This is particularly significant because the Eric Williams Government, for all its shortcomings, had brought much progress to the citizens of the country. Despite his autocratic style the Eric Williams Government did not engage in systematic and widespread suppression of its citizens.
Autocratic rule, even cloaked in the trappings of democracy, eventually causes strong opposition when the people feel that the rulers care mainly about their own power, their own pockets or both. And yes, it is often a combination of greed for power and greed for wealth that drives the dictator, that motivates the strong man, that excites the autocratic ruler. Eric Williams cared little about wealth. And so, in the early years of independence,Trinidad and Tobagowas spared the ravages of financial corruption and the rape of its wealth by the ruling politicians.
Eric Williams was brilliant. Our Hon. Chief Minister, Hubert Hughes, is no Eric Williams. At best he has been an Eric Williams “wanna be”. Yes. Hubert basically has been play acting for 40 years. And this is a serious and dangerous thing. Yes. I said it! Hubert has been play acting as a politician for all these years and he shows no sign of ever doing otherwise. And, mark my words, he will not retire as long as he is able to move around. And should he become immobile, I still have my doubts that he would voluntarily retire. He will be 79 years old later this year. His craving to hold on to power (often sleeping in meetings) in his senior years is a more than an embarrassment. It is a threat toAnguilla’s future. How so, you ask?
The world is changing so rapidly that Hubert cannot keep up with it. I have trouble keeping up. So imagine Hubert, who hardly reads anything, exploits the media at every opportunity to publish and broadcast his words and his photographs, but hardly uses it to be properly informed of current events. To him the Internet is an alien medium.
Hubert has been heard to say that a dictatorship can be a good thing, or words to that effect, so long as it is a benevolent dictatorship. Is this his vision for takingAnguillainto independence? To establish a dictatorship and claim that it is benevolent, while suppressing the people and clamping down on dissent? The signs are there even now. Hubert as the AUM political attacker-in-chief (I do not like “attack dog”) and his entire army of attackers would like to “silence” the Hon. Victor Banks and all of the AUF voices, who are seeking to hold him and his Government accountable. This is anti-democratic behavior by Hubert.
Beware of those who would have you believe that dictatorship can be good in the short term and in the long term! The post independence history of the former colonies is full of the ruins of leaders who started out well intentioned and drunk with power became dictators, who suppressed their people, causing them much pain and loss. Beware of those who love power for its own sake and absolute power absolutely, who would impose their will, while disregarding democratic due process. Beware of those who look to autocratic and dictatorial practices elsewhere in the Caribbean and further a field to provide them with justification for attempting dictatorial behavior here inAnguilla. Beware of Hubert’s and his Ministers dangerous thinking. Beware of anyone who would not hesitate, in the words of the Mighty Sparrow, to let you and all of us know that:
“This land is mine, I am the boss
What I say goes, who vex loss”.
Such a dictatorial attitude is typical of our Chief Minister. That is why over the years he has been the chief source of destabilization inAnguilla’s post Revolution politics. That is why he has been chiefly responsible for the break up and attempted break up of several governments inAnguillasince the ministerial system was introduced in 1976.
The dictatorial tendency, the autocratic style, attitude and approach of Chief Minister Hughes would cause havoc in an independentAnguilla. Such a tendency would lead the Anguillian people down a path to the loss of democratic rights and freedoms. It would lead to the extreme polarization of Anguillian politics, the infusion of violence into our political culture and economic ruin.
We have seen this type of movie before, here in theCaribbean. We have seen the weakening of democracy in some nations and the ascendancy of violence associated with politics. We have heard pronouncements from our Chief Minister which risk the entry of violence into our Anguillian politics, even now, well ahead of the achievement of political independence.
Independence under Hubert Hughes will lead to dictatorship and ruin. We cannot afford to allow our beloved little country to be taken off track to satisfy his seeming lust for more power. We must oppose any of his actions designed to enrich himself and/or his immediate family and/or any of his cohorts. We need to reject the Hubert Hughes doctrine and embrace democracy and the defense of democratic rights, against any and all threats and attempts by the AUM leaders to whittle away our rights and to do as they please.
Let us defend democracy at all times. True democracy, not dictatorship, creates the most favourable climate in which to achieve sustainable development, peace and political stability. Let us embrace democracy. Let us choose the democratic path that leads to sustainable development. Let us build a solid democracy in Anguilla, before independence. After independence, it will be extremely difficult. Without it independence will breed dictatorship.
