(First published by The Anguillian newspaper on 2nd November 2007.)
This article is timely, notwithstanding the date of its first printing. Though many years have rolled by, it still addresses a sore matter which continues to be-devil the Anguillian society today. Constitutional and electoral reform was started inAnguillain 2001. By 2007, when the above article was published, the reform was already a stalemate. It is even worse now in 2012. Up to nowAnguillais no further with that exercise. Now read on:
I will long remember the House of Assembly meeting of 16th October 2007, for two reasons. Firstly, for Edison (Eddy) Baird’s seconding of Hubert Hughes’ motion which called on Government to help find a new site for Dolphin Fantasy. It was indeed good to see Eddy once again seconding Hubert’s motions because his refusal to do so was a sore point between them (the only members on the Opposition-side) for several months.
Oh, yes. Eddy seconded Hubert’s motion. But lo and behold he turned around and gave Hubert a good cut —. That was the strangest thing I had ever seen, or heard, in any parliamentary democracy where the seconder of a motion tore the motion to shreds and in the process gave the mover a sound whipping. Hubert was bewildered. He wondered what had struck him. He now knows that it was a cat-o’-nine-tails. The licking Eddy gave him caused me to ponder on the words of a British parliamentarian who once said: “There are no true friends in politics;” only “sharks circling, waiting for traces of blood to appear in the water.” That is true whether in Opposition or in Government. There are always associates “waiting for traces of blood to appear in the water.”
It is not clear what traces of blood Eddy saw but he used the motion to lambaste Hubert for suggesting, some months earlier, that the best place for Dolphin Fantasy wasRoadBayin his (Eddy’s) constituency. He used the motion, which made no mention ofRoadBay, to make it clear to his constituents that there will be no dolphins, over his dead body, atRoadBay.
In his response to those who spoke on the motion, Hubert took the position that Eddy was playing politics with the issue. And as regards comments from members on the Government-side, he observed that they did not understand the motion. The reason, he said, was that two of them were drinking wine at a late night party, a few hours earlier, so the wine may have affected their thinking. That remark brought Kenneth Harrigan to his feet instantly. He admitted being at the party but made it clear that not a single drop of wine touched his lips. Hubert then changed tune slightly and said that the way Kenneth was dancing suggested he was drinking wine, or something close to wine. But what is not in dispute is that Kenneth was the star of the party with a first-class display of his unique dancing skills. That should be no surprise because he is considered the best dancer in Government. However, when it comes to the Electric Slide he is not in the same class as Wilheim Bourne, the Attorney General. And when it comes to grooving on one floor-tile he can’t stop Chief Minister Fleming. That aside, when all the talking on Hubert’s motion was over the “ayes” had it.
The second reason why I will long remember the House of Assembly meeting of 16th October, is connected with another motion moved by Hubert Hughes. It called for the setting up of a special committee to ensure that Anguillians were appointed to managerial and other senior positions in the tourism industry. Donna Banks, the First Nominated Member, proposed an amendment to the motion and then seconded it. I will never forget the meeting because I do not recall any other occasion, but there may have been others, when a member from the Government-side of the House seconded an Opposition motion. Donna will long be remembered for making history in the House.
I have to admit that Hubert’s motion was the best he has moved in the House of Assembly for many years. It highlighted the fact that whileAnguillawas experiencing tremendous economic growth, its people were being denied access to many of the top jobs in the tourism sector which was propelling the growth.
Oh yes. Donna was in Hubert’s corner big time. And oh, Hubert could not stop grinning with delight! Donna spoke powerfully and passionately in support of the motion. At times I got the impression that she felt as though she was in her church bringing the sermon. She observed that there was a prevailing view that only a certain class of people could fill certain positions (the top ones) in the tourism sector. This, she said, was a “dangerous mindset”. For that reason she called for a “mind-renewal.”
In recalling a personal experience, Donna mentioned how, many years ago, she had applied for a job in the tourism sector but was told that she was “over-qualified and under-experienced.” She went on to call for the awarding of more scholarships in the field of tourism to enable Anguillians to fill top positions. Her contribution to the debate was phenomenal and praiseworthy. I have long regarded her as a good thinker.
Eddy Baird too spoke in strong support of the motion. He remarked that there were occasions when someone would come from overseas to train a local for a particular job but that at the end of the day the said trainer ended up filling the job substantively. In buttressing Donna’s call for more training opportunities for our own people, Eddy opined “that development and training must go together.” Well put. The motion was passed with the full support of the House.
Having recognised Donna’s seconding of Hubert’s motion as a rare happening, I must concede, though, that in recent times it is hard to distinguish between Government and Opposition in the House. Most times the members are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Let me qualify that slightly. Much of the opposition in the House of Assembly these days is opposition within the Opposition. But apart from that, the unity between both sides of the House is very evident.
An area of our development which could do well with the utilisation of such unity is constitutional and electoral reform which is long overdue. Regrettably, our elected representatives have not made much progress on that front especially in light of the fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction with our electoral system. The way the system works makes it exceedingly difficult to unseat incumbents – to attract new entrants. And if there are no changes in the near future then we are going to have the same seven elected members in the House for several more years to come. Our electoral system is one which suggests that our political leaders are elected for life.
Listen here. Since the 1984 general elections, when Ronald Webster, Maurice Connor and Victor Banks lost their seats, not a single incumbent has been defeated at the polls. And since then the only changes that have occurred in the elected membership of the House of Assembly have been by way of death, or resignation from politics.
It was in 1985, following the sad passing of Teacher Albena that Victor Banks got back in the House having won the by-election called to fill the vacancy. Since then no incumbent has died, so that all subsequent changes in the House’s membership came about because of resignations. Here are the facts.
Kenneth Harrigan, who first contested elections in 1984 and lost, only managed to get in the House in 1989 because Nashville Webster resigned from politics and did not contest his seat. Similarly Eddy Baird, who first contested elections in 1989 and lost, only managed to get elected in 1994 because Sir Emile resigned from politics and did not contest his seat. And Neil Rogers got elected in 2000 when Eric Reid resigned from politics and did not contest his seat.
Yes. Our political history shows that after 1984 we have had five general elections (1989, 1994, 1999, 2000 and 2005) and that not a single politician was defeated at the polls. And it suggests that none will be defeated in 2010. Our political history gives considerable credence to the view that our electoral system is one in which once a candidate gets elected it is for life unless he or she chooses to call it quits before death. An important contributing factor is our passive political culture.
An electoral system in which political leaders are changed only by death or resignations is archaic and in need of serious overhaul. For example, the electoral boundaries, which were established in 1972 when our population was just under 6,500 people, have never been changed. (Today our population is around 13,000.)
The need for a reform of the system has been long recognised but there seems to be some reluctance in carrying the process forward. When the constitutional and electoral reform exercise commenced in 2001 everybody was hopeful that its recommendations would have come into effect for the 2005 general elections, but that did not happen. Then a second reform exercise got underway in 2006. The Commission, that said year, submitted its recommendations to Government but the pace at which the matter is progressing suggests that there is no way constitutional reforms, providing for a new electoral system, will be in place for the 2010 general elections.
The way things look now, the earliest time a new electoral system is likely to be in place is 2015 which means that the reform exercise would have taken 14 years to complete. So until 2015, death or resignations will continue being the only means through which our political leaders could be changed. It is no surprise, therefore, that most people are of the view that our elected representatives, on both sides of the House, are in no hurry to change the system because they are deeply in love with it. And love is blind, so they will experience much difficulty in seeing its deficiencies – in seeing that it needs fixing. After all, the system ensures them political longevity. In ensures them victory after victory at the polls, thus their devotion to it and their reluctance to part with it.
Most definitely, the deep love which our seven elected representatives have for our electoral system is standing in the way of long needed constitutional and electoral reform, and the consequential democratisation of our political institutions and processes. It is my hope that my writing about the issue would reignite public debate, and get the process moving again.
(Update: In 2010 Albert Hughes, Osbourne Fleming and Kenneth Harrigan resigned from politics. They did not defend their seats in the House and in came Walcott Richardson, Jerome Roberts and Othlyn Vanterpool. When Evan Gumbs defeated Victor Banks, in Valley South, it was the first time in 26 years (since 1984) that an incumbent member of the House was defeated at the polls.)
