There are few events in Anguilla that are as sadly entertaining as sittings of the Anguilla House of Assembly. This unfortunate reality appears to be a prevailing characteristic of our legislative arm of government. The hallowed halls of the Atlin Noraldo Harrigan Parliamentary Building seem to encase a theatre with a colorful cast of characters, rather than sound leaders prepared to debate serious issues and make decisions in the best interest of the entire populace. Such is the debacle, that the general public is left to assume that the concepts of objectivity, transparency, democracy and reason have been expelled from the House. Why is it that our House is in such disarray? I’m not sure of the source of this particular affliction, but maybe by examining some of the symptoms, we can reach a plausible diagnosis.
Firstly, the laws of Anguilla and the rules of the House are not always observed. Who can forget the infamous exchange between the Honourable Speaker of the House and the Member for Road North (Minister of Education) in relation to the Education Bill? The Speaker, in spite of the Attorney General’s admonition that she was acting outside her powers and contrary to the rules, nevertheless proceeded of her own volition to delay the reading of the Bill. This, the Speaker has done on more than one occasion.
Secondly, Government sometimes opposes its own legislation. Anyone who is familiar with the legislative process knows that before any legislation is presented to the House of Assembly for debate, it is first reviewed and approved by Executive Council. Yet, based on the comments made in the House, it seems that elected representatives who are members of Executive Council dissociate themselves from – and in fact criticise – the very legislation which they approved in Council. The most recent example is the Chief Minister’s comments in relation to the proposed Property Tax legislation which was recently brought to the House and retracted, as well as the Speaker’s indication that the Minister of Infrastructure had some issues with the Education Bill.
Thirdly, parliamentary privileges are abused. It seems that members of the House, armed with the knowledge that they are clothed with parliamentary privilege in the House, use the opportunity to make reckless, derogatory and sometimes defamatory statements about anyone (public servants, other members of the House, members of the public) who has, or is perceived to have, a different view point from theirs.
Fourthly, debate is discouraged. We can well recall the occasions during which the Honourable Speaker failed to maintain the level of objectivity required by the office and sought to suppress debate on relevant issues emanating from opposition members of the House. The most notable of these occasions resulted in the Leader of the Opposition being expelled from the House for his insistence that he be allowed to speak in relation to proposed taxation.
Fifthly, the proceedings of the House are allowed to be hijacked. While in the interest of transparency it is important to provide opportunities for public input in matters to be debated in the House, it is counter-productive to allow a norm to be created whereby the business of the House is arrested due to a phone call, letter or other communication being made on the day of scheduled debate. While this may be prudent in exceptional cases, when it is allowed to become the norm it can convey the message that the House agenda can be easily disrupted by the concerns of a few thus hampering the progress that is desired by the majority.
What then is the cause of the disarray in the House? I am no specialist, but based on the symptoms described I am minded to think that the disarray stems from a lack of understanding of (and by extension lack of respect for) the role of the House, the role and responsibilities of the Speaker and members, and of the laws and rules that govern the functioning of the House. The role of the House is so significant in any flourishing democracy that I would recommend that the Speaker and all members (current and future) be exposed to training and re-training on a periodic basis in relation to these matters. I would hope that our leaders would be receptive to this and other suggestions that could assist in improving the functioning of the House. While our diagnosis of the situation and suggested treatment may be different, I am sure most will agree that, in the interest of democracy and good governance, we desperately need to put our House in order.
