My discussions last week in my article entitled “The voice of God” was intended to get a reaction from the Government and its supporters. I really expected that the response would be either that Rev. John A. Gumbs, the new Chairman of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee, had misinterpreted its terms of reference – or that the Chief Minister and his colleagues had made a technical error in the drafting of the instructions given to the Committee. In that context, I was expecting a raft of denials from the Government regarding the letter we received from the Chairman, as well as a pledge to the people that this Government would never act without due regard for the wishes of the Anguillian people. My expectations have proven to be vain. In fact, the Chief Minister, in an interview with Mr. Wycliffe Richardson on ATV Channel 3, stated emphatically that he had instructed the Committee to draft an Independence Constitution. In other words, Rev. Gumbs’ interpretation of the instructions was both accurate and authentic.
Furthermore, my expectation that the Chief Minister and his Talk Show sycophants would get on the media and declare that they would never do anything against the wishes of the people likewise came to naught. And some key AUM supporters treated my emphatic position that there should be no advanced preparations for Independence without a Referendum, with open disdain. In fact, the only appropriate descriptions that could be given to the responses from the “radio talking heads” sympathetic to the AUM Government were anger and bitterness. At the end of the AUF Press Conference last Tuesday, Ras B engaged me in an exchange in which he intimated that really this was nothing new —Anguilla was Independent before but we were invaded. And on the Saturday night Talk Show on Upbeat Radio, it is my understanding that one of the Hosts and the usual callers suggested that the people should trust the leaders who they elect to decide on the issue of Independence on their behalf. In other words, it appears to be the view of the AUM sympathizers on the talk show circuit that the whole matter is “much ado about nothing”. It also appears to be their opinion that a referendum is unnecessary for at least two reasons, namely, that we have been Independent before and that the Government in Office should have the right to decide.
Were it not for the foregoing, I would have chosen a new topic for discussion in this week’s presentation. And although I am loath to belabour the issue for yet another week, I feel duty bound to do so because of what I consider deliberate attempts by the AUM Government, and its supporters, to confuse and mislead the public thereby usurping our right to decide our future constitutional status. Ironically, this is the same party that came to Office on a platform of openness and transparency. Yet in a matter that will have long-term consequences for the people who elected them, they appear to want to rush them headlong into an arrangement without their consent. In addition, I have yet to ascertain whether or not the matter of the Committee’s terms of reference received the approval of Executive Council (EXCO). What I do know is that a number of Members of EXCO have expressed surprise when they were informed of Rev. Gumbs’s letter in which he indicated that he was instructed to prepare an Independence Constitution.
My motive in this article as in the last remains the same, namely, to ensure that the Government does not “fast track” the Independence process. Our party is of the view that this cannot be an AUM party decision — it must be an Anguillian people decision. In that context, we will do whatever is required to make that a reality and will not be intimidated by the fear tactics of the Chief Minister and his cohorts. Let me highlight a few of the arguments put forward by AUM “talking heads” over the past week regarding the issue of Referendum and Independence and comment of them as follows:-
1.) AUM View: The 1967 St. Kitts Nevis & Anguilla Associated Statehood Constitution provided for its Members to go into Independence without the requirement of a Referendum.
My Comment: Even if that were indeed the caseAnguillanever acceded to the Associated Statehood Constitution but rather rejected the arrangement via two referendums and through its formal Separation on December 19, 1980. The 1980 Anguilla Act under which Anguilla is now administered does not include any such provision. However, all the Overseas Territories have been assured that the British Government will not stand in the way of that aspiration provided it is the expressed will of the people. Consideration has been given, however, to an arrangement whereby a political party can make “Independence” a well-stated part of its platform in a general election and thereby receive a mandate, once successful, to pursue that status. The AUM therefore has two probable choices either “a general election or a referendum”.
2.) AUM View: The AUF is being inconsistent because while in Government its members supported Independence. Now for political reasons they are opposing it.
My Comment: The AUF never made a sustained pitch for Independence as obtains today. The mention of “Independence” was always in the context of frustrations or negotiations and the knowledge that it is a goal to which every nation must aspire. However, the Party always fought for increased internal self-government as contemplated in the 1980 Anguilla Act. Our last Constitutional and Reform Committee document was crafted along those lines. What we are opposing is the mad rush to Independence that is apparent in the Chief Minister’s rhetoric.
3.)AUM View: The Government was elected to make decisions and the decision to go into Independence should be their call and the people must trust them to do so.
My Comment:Going intoIndependenceis not a routine decision. It must be preceded by a very clear and feasible plan for self-reliance. In every modern democratic society the Government must receive a mandate from the people to make any radical changes to their constitutions. The Anguilla Government should not be an exception. The AUM supporters must not continue to believe that the rules are for others and not for them.
4.) AUM View: There should be no big fuss about whether or not we are ready to pursue Independence because Anguilla was Independent before – in 1969. And seemingly implying that if we were not “invaded” (to use that term loosely) by the British a few weeks later we would be a thriving Independent nation today.
My Comments: This points out the naivety of many AUM supporters who would believe that the situation in 1969 is comparable in any way to what is happening today. Firstly, in 1969 Anguilla was an agrarian economy depending for the most part on remittances for its survival. Secondly, there were no public utilities, roads or other infrastructure in place for economic take-off and no financing available to construct it or maintain it. Thirdly, there were no proper government services to cater for the social developmental needs of citizens. Fourthly, there were no institutions in place to ensure good governance, security and justice. And finally, there was no plan for national development and self-reliance. Obviously, anyone who would be satisfied to suggest that what obtained in 1969 provides any guidance for what should take place in this modern age is either disingenuous or delusional.
5.)AUM view: The British Government is preventing us from borrowing and restricting our access to foreign aid. We therefore need to go into Independence so we can borrow and get more aid from other countries.
My Comments: All foreign aid has strings attached and right now much of that aid is drying up. In fact, our relationship with the United Kingdom (UK) opens up some areas of assistance to us by virtue of membership in the European Union (EU) and its Agencies. We will soon find out that the British Government is far more lenient in terms of preconditions for borrowing than the (International Monetary Fund) IMF where the Independent States of our region go to seek critical financial support in times of challenge. We will always have to be governed by some guidelines or framework when we borrow whether we are an Overseas Territory or an Independent State. And anything we borrow will always have to be based on our ability to repay. In other words, the grass is always greener on the other side.
6.) AUM View: When we go into Independence we will not lose our rights to a British or EU Passport and the privileges that we now enjoy as a result of that status. No need to be concerned.
My Comments: There is a very simple answer to this statement. Ask the other former British Independent States in the region about their experience. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. When Anguilla decides to go Independent we will have to make up our mind on this issue. No need to fool the people with false promises — we cannot be Independent and an Overseas Territory at the same time. The options for training and other benefits will certainly cease.
7.) AUM View: Britain is trying to hold on to Anguilla because there is a vein of oil running from Venezuela to Anguilla that they are seeking to exploit.
My Comments: Were that the case our problem will most likely be coming from Venezuela rather than the U. K. First of all, Anguilla does not have the capacity to exploit and protect such“oil resources”on its own; and secondly the U.K. being responsible for our international and maritime affairs would have the right to do so now if it so wishes. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this spurious claim, in which case it could be another attempt to vilify the British Government and gain support for Independence.
The foregoing views being expressed by AUM supporters are just a mere sampling of the tales that abound. In fact, the Chief Minister has also been declaring that the British Government wants to starve Anguillians into submission. One thing is certain though, I have not heard a single comment coming from the AUM “Talking Heads” that would indicate that they have any intention of conducting a referendum on Independence before proceeding with the preparation of a Constitution. All I am hearing are arguments that seem to attack the AUF for demanding that a Referendum be conducted on this matter. This could suggest that they are afraid of having a Referendum because it may not reflect their views. Is this the kind of democracy, openness and transparency that they promised the electorate?Or can it be that the vein from Venezuela is also bringing politics “Chavez style!”
