It is getting monotonous and disgusting to listen the same people; acting in the same plot; playing the same role over and over again in the saga of what on this island is called politics. It is like a play that runs continuously depicting the real world of politics in Anguilla as a comedy with tragic undertones. The main characters display big egos supported by undisciplined minds while their behavior gives the feeling that they think: “Je suis Anguilla” (I am Anguilla) or that: “Anguilla c’est moi” (Anguillais me!) This is the problem that clouds their thinking and undermines the prospects of advancing towards mature politics here.
After breaking with St Kitts we sang “We out to build a newAnguilla”. Now Mr. Hughes fifty years later is saying “let’s break with Britain so we can build a newAnguilla”. But never has he said how? Or done anything to make it happen. Is it that we must take a leap of faith or rely on an “Act of God” to bring it about? By looking back at the performance of some of them one can determine how much they really care about the pressing and dire needs of the people of Anguilla. Or if it is that they are using Anguilla for their own self-aggrandizement.
The real issues for all of them were economic but independence has not been able to solve these problems. We seem to accept things as a “fait accompli” and never tackle them. Unless we are first prepared to work on this problem we are simply “spinning our wheels”. The “politics of independence” is all emotion and it will not get anyone who pursues it another pound of rice. We must ask what is in it for us as a country and what are the collective benefits and the prospects for future generations. We should “hasten slowly”!
Do not be pushed, both Messrs. Hughes and Webster are veterans of this island’s political wars and have been on opposite sides before over what is good for Anguilla. It was Mr. Hughes’ vociferous criticism coupled with a motion of no confidence that interrupted Mr. Webster’s political agenda and changed the course of politics here forever. But politics makes for “strange bed fellows”. Therefore the attempt at the public harmonizing of Mr. Webster’s letter with Mr. Hughes’ speeches cannot be accepted as guidance, but simply for what it is: the expression of another man’s point of view.
Proudly and respectfully granting all honour and praise to the Honorable Mr. Webster, as the father of the nation, all Anguillians know of his tremendous contribution. Now we have the benefit of hindsight to apply in the search for making the best decision and the weight to attach to the letters. Some are wondering about the motive. Did Mr. Webster suggest to the Government that a letter be read under his auspices or was it the reverse? In the interest of openness that ambivalence should be publicly cleared up. The recent political overtures by Mr. Hughes also make us wonder if he in his time of need has become “Paul on the road to Damascus?” It is Mr. Hughes who for the last few years stood in the park in front of Mr. Webster and in poor taste extolling the virtues of Mr. Bradshaw. Now is there a genuine change of heart or is Mr. Hughes trying to solicit help from someone whom he thinks has the clout or is he acting out his feeling of “Anguilla c’est moi”?
Before we can go on to make any further analysis we must first question ourselves about what qualities we think are requisite for a politician to possess so as to be able to lead us? Then assess them accordingly. Do we want a modern thinker capable of making good decisions based on the immediate circumstances and conditions? Or do we prefer to have a person who is a nice and who will lend us money? Or do we want a person whose stance is: “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country? Or do you want a person with dictatorial tendencies and who behaves like he owns the country and the people in it and should therefore get what he wants? Or do we want a person who can carefully balance the odds necessary for good decision-making? Or one who will always put country first?”
The fact that we have been unable to find many of the more positive characteristics has had has a major impact on the shaping of the party political system in Anguilla. Edmund Burke, a British politician writing in the eighteenth century, said “a party as a group of people with the same basic ideas which they collectively want to promote”. This is in stark contrast to what exist here in Anguilla. The so-called party system is the residue of the early tortuous interaction of people who were playing at politics. There has never been a focused cohesive group with the purpose of shaping this country or promoting a particular ideal. This is where Mr. Banks and his party come in. It is they who will present to the people a new version of politics. In the past it has always been individual and ad hoc reminiscent of today’s Government. Those politicians came together to exploit an opportunity for themselves whenever it arose. There were no core ideas, ideology, or other purpose for their existence. They had no road map and did not know where the road might lead. The recent injection of Mr. Webster into Mr. Hughes’ independence effort confirms this and also supports the idea that politics makes “strange bed-fellows”. It was Mr. Hughes’ “motion of no confidence” that began the decline of Mr. Webster. That fact should not be lost! And Mr. Hughes must be remembered for the things he does not stand for. As Mr. Hughes continues to fail to bring jobs and business opportunities to the country the people must return to those who presided over the greatest period of economic growth. The present Government has done nothing from the standpoint of the economy and is bogged down with “the politics of independence”. They have not been able to take beneficial lessons from some of our neighbours in the region. What is the problem? Why rush to become a failed state? There is no good reason. The Governor-Generals “in waiting” are not going to die now! “Only those whom the Gods love die young!” Let us pause and say to ourselves “which Independent Caribbean Island we would wish to be like? Find out how much debt they have! Assess the opportunities for upward mobility among the masses! Evaluate how much their social structure has changed! Compare their per capita income with ours! Then make an honest and realistic assessment of our situation. In such an assessment consider the constitutional arrangements and economic status of the BVI, Bermuda, Montserrat, Gibraltar, St Helena and otherOverseasTerritories. The picture leads to the conclusion that’ the man “is more blame to bear than the British. The drive for independence now is emotional nonsense based on one man’s bloated ego! Some say that they derived a tremendous feeling of satisfaction from last week’s activities in the park — but they cannot empathize with those who do not have much in the fridge. So Independence then what? Are we then going to drive on the right hand side or on any side?
