When the Normans landed in England in 1066, they had no plan that outlined what England would look like in the years to come. It is the behaviour of the people that lived there during that time, as well as thereafter, that fashioned what England would become. They knew nothing of democracy. They lived under a system of feudalism. Several hundred years later the British settlers in America had a different starting point from which to build their country. My point is that in both instances the people developed the system that they wanted. So too must Anguillians!
The idea is that out of our political inheritance we can put in place a structure that meets our needs. Let us not just be destructive. Let us together try to be constructive. Like it or not, our political heritage is British. We have inherited the political attributes of the Westminster model as well as the administrative, behavioural and procedural practices, in large measure, that go along with it. For us, then, the answer may be in the Shakespearean question: “to be or not to be”. What type of country do we want? On what foundation should we build it? How best must we adapt what we have in order to achieve what we want?
The Westminster model superstructure is a parliamentary system. It tells us how a Bill becomes an Act; that there must be a House of Representatives; elections should be held ever so often to select Representatives; and that these Representatives should run the country. It also teaches is that there will be a Government formed from the members of the majority party. It also declares that only the Government can raise revenue and incur expenditure as agreed in budgetary arrangements. These elements are largely influenced by political considerations. But we have also inherited the Whitehall model administrative system that essentially sets out the functions of the civil service.
In most instances we have also accepted as part of our law the British “common law”, and through our relationship with the UK some of their statutes bind us. It is under this framework that we function legally. Outside of this we are on our own through the enactment of our own local legislation.
Perhaps since we are not starting from scratch, some natural and inherent problems will exist. Straight “off the bat” it is recognized that an Englishman is not an Anguillian. Englishmen see things differently and do not think like us. Furthermore, those models were designed by the British and for the British. But there are some commonalities. Therefore we can use from the models what fits and discard what does not. There is absolutely no reason to fight over the small issues. And we must always be careful not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. Common sense, I think.
Nowhere in the Commonwealth has the models been swallowed “hook, line and sinker”. Not even in Australia, New Zealand or Canada where, in terms of “kith and kin”, they tend to be British in their political orientation, have they been true to the pattern. They have used the models with some revision. Basic political structures have not changed overall but the nitty-gritty of its workings has varied. No matter how minute the changes are from place to place — each created a system that suits their circumstances and conditions. This is what they used to build their nation. We must build in our own likeness. Basic to the nation-building process is the two-party system considering those who are for as well as those who are against. So to proceed towards nation-building that is what we need to do and as well as understand. We must first have in place a proper party system, that is, people held together by the same ideas and the same agenda heading towards the same goal. They cannot be like those who are held together by personal interests or those who would jump ship faster than “rats leaving a sinking vessel”. They must be genuinely committed to a national ideal.
They should be looking for the benefits of parliamentary democracy to be achieved and for Government to become more responsive and indeed more responsible. Obviously, more representatives are needed for the success we seek. The very word parlay from the French means to talk. Presently there are not enough people in the House with a good “say so”. Therefore the Government will always have its way. That is not what the model shows. It points to a useful backbench that we do not have. Technically, what we have is a pseudonym for parliamentary democracy. Now is the right time for corrections to be made. Now, more than anytime before, is a good opportunity to get on with nation-building first, then deal with the rest later. And for a while put the question of independence on hold, because for now a majority of us know that it leads to nowhere.
When we see our children feeling confident and comfortable with going to school in the UK where they can later stay and work; play cricket; join the army; or hopefully, one day soon, be able to play soccer as well — we realize that they have options. So what do we want them to do? Stay here with nothing to do and then get in trouble with the law? The whole thing comes back to the people. It is the chicken or the egg syndrome: Do people build countries or do countries build people?
There is a definition that says: “Nation-building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state”. Inherent in this statement is the idea of people acting deliberately and cooperatively in order to achieve a common goal. For sure it contradicts the detached “rantings” of the one-man show we have grown to know. Is this not what the AUF offers? What the AUF want to build is a better working House of Assembly and a vibrant economy thereby promoting a forward looking country. The descendants of criminals of the Botany Bay Prison Colony laid the foundation for the Australia nation. So that brings us back to the capacity of our people to work to create the country they want. In any collective and organized undertaking there is the need for a Leader. That is why there are Governments and a good reason to be careful with whom we put in Government. The Westminster model says, one man, one vote. And it is the people that vote and cause a Government. They in fact select people to build the nation but the nation can only be as good as its people.
Of course we are Anguillians and want to keep it that way! But it is our responsibility to build a nation of which we are proud. And later on when the nation is set up, then independence could be on another agenda. We have inherited a proven and tried model. However, we have to recognize that it is not a one size fits all and more often than not needs minor adjustments. For us in Anguilla the immediate and major adjustment in the interest of parliamentary democracy is the size of the House. Therefore, when we speak in constitutional terms, arranging the size of the House is a very important issue and should be the first priority. We must do that first because, otherwise, what we are doing amounts to “one-man” rule – effectually a one party system. So we got the models and some people wanting to build the nation. Let us begin nation-building in its truest sense. We can begin at the next election. To do this we must ask the question: “Why am I voting for this candidate?” Is he or she capable, and in possession of the right tools, to make the island what we want it to be?
