The other night at a town hall meeting Victor Banks expressed the view that he is ready, willing and able to work to put Anguilla back on the right track. But he also conceded that he couldn’t do it alone. The “man on the street” had an important part to play, beginning with his approach to politics; his understanding of the role and function of government; and how he should make his vote” count”. I certainly agreed with that sentiment. And most of the people who were there seemed to agree as well.
The growing resentment to the approach of the present Government is not only restricted to the crowd that were in attendance and who appeared to be friendly to the Anguilla United Front (AUF), but it is becoming more and more prevalent in the public at large. Now that they have found out who Hughes really is, they have come to realize he is the problem that we need to solve now, before we become an island with dried bush and some good beaches where nobody goes. As Banks said, “it is we the people who can change things”. In this political atmosphere it is hoped that the church, the last bastion of morality, would lend a hand in that area and together help to pull Anguilla out of the hole. People at the meeting recognized that we could not carry on in this way much longer, and were saying with conviction that, for change to come, Hughes must go.
In the exchanges that followed the presentations, the two main matters that concerned the audience were how Hughes has bungled the economy and how he is handling the alleged immorality issue in the party. Some people are saying that Hughes wants Independence so that he could do whatever he wants without really caring about needs of the people. The way that he fought with Governors, Shave, Harris and Harrison is indicative of this position. Many persons are not hesitant to say openly, that seeing the way the country is running they now feel they made a mistake by voting the way they did at the last election. Even if they are willing to search hard for a reason for the “slow down” in the economy they find it difficult to follow Hughes’ reason and rationale for handling the current scandal. To them to accept certain behaviour from people in high places is to impugn the character of all our politicians and is a bad example for young people and would-be politicians. We need to raise the bar. That behavior only lowers it. Certainly this not what we mean, when we say, “we unique”. Nor does it represent the type of leadership required to build the country we want. That is why we must look elsewhere.
In 2011, Banks was already on record for saying that, if given the opportunity his desire is work towards the promotion of a less confrontational, kinder and more compassionate society that would in the end make Anguilla a “classy yet classless” community. And the facts point out that Anguilla would have a better chance for moving forward positively under the leadership of Victor Banks and the AUF than it has under the present regime. Right now we are bogged down in a quagmire. Everybody knows it. What are we waiting for? History gives us much evidence of what happens when depravity and low morality sets in — Rome was burnt and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Furthermore, the longer we wait the worst it will get.
The leadership of the AUF will not gloat over the shortcomings of other politicians on this island. After all we are but mere earthlings filled with frailties. However, the AUF is committed to pointing out wrong wherever it exists and trying to right it. And it (the AUF) must not be too modest to point to the fact that they have and can do better. Hughes’ current behavior puts in plain view-for everybody to see, that he lacks problem solving skills or appreciation in general for handling the public at large and as a result he transforms simplicity into complexity. In the present issue relating to alleged misconduct in his Government, for example, Hughes could have approached it differently. He could have cushioned the impact by being slightly apologetic without making any admissions and adopting a more measured approach with the Governor. But instead he blew it, when he brought into question the Governor’s conduct and then sought to make a comparison with a totally unrelated matter involving the former Minister of Works, Mr. Harrigan. Whatever the merits or demerits of the earlier situation is the Chief Minister making reference to that case, to say “two wrongs make a right”? If he is then that is non-sensical! “Small boy logic”! And any one who uses it is definitely not leadership material. There is a lot of “meat” in Banks statement. It says that it is the people that cause the change to happen. They do so when they vote. They do so when they speak out against bad policies and leadership styles. But the more serious and broader issues that Banks raises is that one must understand what one is doing when one votes one way or another because a vote is not an abstract exercise — it has long lasting consequences for all of us.
Can we say that the results of the last election show that we understand the meaning of voting as a useful tool in the hands of Willie Winky for making politicians do the right things? What is the relevant “basket of qualifications” that our leaders should have? I would suggest that that basket should include: the ability to put country first; some understanding of the way the world operates outside of our insular borders; honesty; a basic level of political sophistication; an ability to listen; the capacity to work with other people and accept the points of view of others; and a solid platform for improving knowledge and skills. These are the bare bones needed for us to begin to set standards that would help us make reasoned choices and at the same time raise the bar in our nation’s politics.
The present climate of opinion demands it. And the negative attitude of the Chief Minister commands it. We are stuck at the bottom of the political ladder. The results of Hughes efforts confirm this. Throughout his long years in politics he has always been associated with the negative. The record shows a history of ongoing fights with Governors and Ministers in his own Government; of negative contributions in political battle over transshipment; the most vicious non-confidence motion he moved against Mr. Webster; the nasty court challenge he made on Speaker Rogers’s ruling; the recent poor handling of the issues surrounding his Ministers; and the launching of an misguided attack on the Teachers Union are all examples of what makes up the story of uselessness. The story is about him and us because it questions our political maturity as a People. We know this political history, yet we allow him to exert more influence on Anguilla’s destiny today than anyone else. And since we are not shut off from the rest of the world we know that whether it is in a country called “Lowlife or Hoghole” a person with that history would not be sitting in the Chief-Minister’s Office. So what is the difference here? We know that Hughes can’t change now. His political style belongs to the age of dinosaurs.
Some years ago Lee Kwan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore referred to the antics of Caribbean politicians as Calypso politics. But this old lady said to me the other day: “Ayah looka work Hughes bringing in poppy-show politics!” [Puppet show] So why then is he the Chief-Minister? Do we have masochistic tendencies? Or are we simply gluttons for Hughes’s punishment? Perhaps Anguilla needs a political revival!
