That famous English playwright, Sir William Shakespeare, made a most telling and candid statement in his play entitled “The Tempest”. He wrote: “the past is prologue to the present”. If we think about what it means now, that we are here in fact struggling to survive — it is not necessarily intended to speak of a glorious past nor to paint a picture of dynamic prospects for the future. It suggests, perhaps, that we cannot hang on to the past but rather we must break from our past in order for positive thought and action to take root and flourish. People have been living here since 1650 and have done so under various different political arrangements. Yet through it all nothing much has changed. The question is what caused us to be who we are? Or what is our past telling us about ourselves?
So far, Anguilla compared to the rest of theCaribbeanbreeds a much less dynamic and flamboyant type of politician. And neither has it produced leaders in the style and level of self-confidence and political aggressiveness as Messrs. Bradshaw, Williams, Gairy, Joshua, Bosquet, Manley,Adamsand other such men. There is a good reason steeped in our past that made Anguillian politicians what they are today. Firstly, the isolation of the island heightened by the impact of insularity; secondly, the demography; and thirdly, the dominance of St Kitts from the early part of the nineteenth century until the break up of the three-island Federation. When these main features are critically explained we become better able to understand our political behaviour.
For hundreds of years,Anguillahad not been a much often visited place. People were not accustomed to strangers and, because of this, unfamiliar faces and so called “off the country people” were suspect and not easily welcomed here. This had a negative effect on our ability to gain knowledge or “broaden our horizons” in a way that could be gained from interacting with outsiders. We therefore formed ideas and opinions derived from the same narrow perspective of our closest neighbours. Which could hardly vary and seldom differed. The margin for expansion of ideas, under these conditions, was non-existent and everyone was always “on the same page”. Not only was large-scale movement between islands by people other than workers limited, but inter-island movement also was not an everyday occurrence. For a long time the main regions were identified as The Valley, Sandy Ground, “Up-ala”, and “Dung-ala”. People from these areas stayed in their own vicinity and basically only knew what went on around them. This condition was not very conducive to the promotion and dissemination of new and different life concepts. East Enders and West Enders seldom met whileIslandHarbourdid its own thing.
The dominance of the central government in St Kitts determined what type of politician would emerge on Anguilla andNevis. This most likely happened because of the importance of sugar production and the power of the “Sugar-crats”. St Kitts had been a settled colony that had a “cash crop”. The settlers used the sugar levies to build the island “to suit themselves”. St. Kitts had better soil conditions than the sister islands and this primarily gave it a head start in shaping the infrastructure of the island and, as matter of fact, the settlers got more from the island than they gave back. It was not until after slavery was abolished, and these islands became crown colonies, that the settlers lost some of their influence toLondon. Contrary to what some people may have said, it was not the practice ofBritainto provide budgetary supplements for St Kitts. It was sugar money and the “Sugar-crats” that ran things. All of them were persons of European descent whose ancestors had been here for centuries. They had no interest in Anguilla andNevis. They spent their tax money for their benefit on St Kitts, therefore the disparity of development among the three islands.
The friction began in earnest as soon asBritainlumped Anguilla first, thenNevis, with St Kitts. All three islands resented it. The “Sugar-crats” thought it a bad deal because neither of these two islands brought any financial benefit into the new relationship andBritainmade no arrangement to help monetarily. The major European families who were in charge said: “We did not ask for colonies and we not supporting any!” So they spent their money where they earned it. The political outcome was that since Anguilla andNevishad no money they also had no clout. Their representatives could not cause anything to happen so they took on a subservient role. Like always “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. For over three hundred years the “Sugar-crats” pleased themselves.
It was not until the unrest of the 1940s, and the recommendations of the Lord Moyne Commission Report and the consequential granting of “one man one vote” that a shift in political power took place. That was how Mr. Robert Bradshaw was able to surface and fiercely challenged the estate owners. And he was able, to some extent, to bring power to the lower economic classes in the society. He was not the originator of organized power in St Kitts. Already there existed such movements as Friendly Societies and the Workers League. And when Unions became legal he was in the vanguard. His power was not derived from being elected but because of his position in theUnion. The man working on the estate now had someone to take on the estate owners. Unlike the sister islands, the people in St Kitts blamed the “Sugarcrats” for their plight, whereas in Nevis andAnguilla, they blamed St. Kitts. In these islands other than their elected representatives, few people took active part in the type politics that could help shape the political dialogue. They remained stuck in one mode, namely, the earlier position of not wanting to be with St Kitts. So neither their economics nor their politics got the input necessary for growth and advancement. This is in large measure how we got here. That is our past. The past is prologue to the present. We cannot do anything about it except that we can use it as a guide to future.
So whither goesAnguilla? Bring forward your best learned; your most caring; the very dedicated; the well equipped; and the lovers of country, and shake off the liars – the deceitful ones. Deny those who only seek self-aggrandizement, and the benefits of office for their own glory, while the needs of the people are ignored. Break from the past and never again should we elect a leader whose politics remotely resembles that of Mr. Hughes. Our past reveals that our problems rest on the fact that we have always had a poor economy; a weak political system; and a lack of collective responsibility. It is in these areas we have to do the “hard slugging”. We must radically examine the reasons why we vote, and no longer should a vote be cast for a candidate simply because of the family relationship – but on the consideration of how capable and ready that person is for the job. And we should pour scorn on the idea that “you do not need education to be a politician”. Here, instead, the motto should be to “aim at the clouds”. That other concept is backward. It is a “stuck in the mud” attitude. One on which no place can thrive.
There should be more opportunities for respectful public debate, and the promotion of various progressive viewpoints should be encouraged. One is cognizant that nothing is learnt from the diatribe presented weekly by the Chief Minister. That foolishness could not work anywhere else. It would make the rats onDogIslandsuck their teeth and walk away! The bad habit of naming people in the House in order to denigrate them should be challenged by the public at-large. In the historical context, we are seen to be fighting with St. Kitts about money; with theUKabout money; and always our conclusion is “if they ein geein us nothing we ein want them here!” One wonders what will happen when the international donors, that are supposedly out there, do not deliver? Are we going to say stop the world we want to get off? Or are we going to turn inward and say lets “change the approach man” and begin to search for other ways to bring money toAnguilla? Obviously, the constitution does not hamper our development. The real problem is how to get money here.
The Flag Project is a lesson in economics. It has taught us what can happen when huge sums of money are pumped into a system, and the results when it dries up. It makes us realize that we need people at the helm that understand that talk is cheap. To maintain growth needs more than talk. So far, all that has been received from this government has been bad talk that tends to chase away people with money that could be invested here. And it likewise scares local investors who are seeking a sound investment environment. Many persons and groups have come to the conclusion that nothing is happening; that not much will happen under this regime; and, chances are, things could get worse the longer they are in power.
Regardless of the words in a constitution nothing will change. There is a saying “words are mere rascals”. A Constitution defines the relationship between the rulers and the ruled. However, it is the everyday interaction of the people that defines the nation. And that is why we need to look in the mirror. A fundamental problem that gets in our way, and that stifles our progress, is our readiness to lay blame elsewhere instead of where it belongs. And to expect other people to do for us what we would not do for ourselves. The Library, in The Valley, which was given to us is a very nice building. If it needs a coat of paint and the donors did not leave money to paint it what do we do? What are our options, knowing that it is being said that the government cannot find the money? Do we let the building bleach into raggedness? Or try and paint it by harnessing local resources? Or should we wait untilIndependenceto beg other people? This government offers nothing by way of encouragement to the people, and has not tried to spur them to pull up themselves by their own bootstraps. What do they care? Some of them already have it made — they have never borrowed from a bank. All they appear to seek is more for themselves and their immediate families.
The concept of self-help should be promoted so that we can break out of this mould and build, collectively, the spirit of self-reliance and the importance of community effort especially in times of economic challenge. We ought to work on preparing Anguillians for making a better future for themselves.
Independenceis an “empty commission” not worth having at this juncture. It may well be a big deal for some “deafies” on the island who have not heard what the British have been saying for years, namely, all you need is a referendum. If you want it come and get it! You can order it on line! What is your e-mail address? We will send it for it you via the Internet — if that is what you want? We could save you some passage money! Them boys would not have to be up and down making up silly arguments, from CARICOM to NOCOM to DUMBCOM and to whosoever Will May Come! These are just acronyms and slogans that mean “nothing” simply to point to the facts of what happens when people who cannot claim a surplus of brain — are given power. Their actions in the end amount to nothing more than a SITCOM! Really, it is crystal clear that this Government is impotent and has done nothing but bark at the accomplishments of the Anguilla United Front (AUF). There is no positive future to come from this Government’s behavior. It is the mirror image of uselessness!
