The long and tumultuous relationship between the Honourable Chief Minister, Hubert Hughes, and the Honourable Edison Baird came to an abrupt and unceremonious end on Tuesday 25th June when the Chief Minister dismissed Baird as a Minister of Government. The dismissal came after days of much speculation regarding what would be Mr Baird’s fate after he voted in Executive Council to close the Dolphinarium in direct contradiction to the wishes of the Chief Minister and his administration.
Mr Baird and Chief Minister Hughes go back a long way. Baird often tells the story of how, when he was a young lad, Mr Hughes used him to announce his political meetings in Sandy Ground. Mr Baird was also a member of previous Governments with Chief Minister Hughes after successfully contesting elections in 1994 and 1999. And when the former Minister of Finance Mr Victor Banks left the Hughes Government in 1999, Mr Baird maintained his allegiance with Mr Hughes.
After the 2000 general elections, both Baird and Hughes served together on the opposition side of the House for many years. And there is no doubt that Mr Baird was most instrumental in returning the AUM Government to office following the 2010 general elections. Somehow, despite all their differences, Mr Baird and Mr Hughes always managed to work together. Actually, Hughes’ appointment as Chief Minister, on three occasions, would not have been possible without Baird’s support.
However, the love affair took a turn for the worse when, shortly after the 2010 general elections, Hughes sought to remove portions of Baird’s portfolio because of some internal disagreements. Further, to add insult to injury, Mr Hughes revoked Mr Baird’s appointment (by him) as Deputy Chief Minister. Things went quickly downhill from there on. Mr Baird, from all indications, did not attend “cabinet” meetings, but it is unclear whether this was voluntarily or whether he was excluded from attending. What was clear, though, was that there was a serious rift in the AUM administration. This was played out before the general public, in the House of Assembly and via the media. Neither Mr Baird nor the Chief Minister, and other members of his administration, made a secret of the internal differences. The exchanges in the media were sometimes ugly and distasteful. Of greater concern were the times when it seemed that the internal differences hindered objective thought in considering issues affecting Anguilla. The impression given was that decisions were being made ‘spitefully’ rather than in the public interest.
Given the rift in the AUM administration, almost from its inception, some persons were skeptical regarding whether the Chief Minister would ever dismiss Mr Baird. It seems, however, that when Baird supported the closure of the Dolphinarium, it was a sure sign that the relationship between himself and the Chief Minister had irretrievably broken down. Despite Mr Baird’s personal views on the project, the closure of the Dolphinarium will result in loss of employment for some persons. With the increasing discontent among the populace in relation to Anguilla’s economic situation, this is something that the AUM administration could ill afford.
Despite this, there are many members of the public who believed that, given their history, the Chief Minister would have tried to salvage his relationship with Mr Baird. However, it is public knowledge (both from utterances in the media and protest actions) that the Chief Minister was under severe pressure from his supporters to ‘sack’ Baird. It is therefore fair to surmise that the relationship was further strained due to outside interference which prevented any opportunity for reconciliation. The relationship between Chief Minister Hughes and Mr Baird finally succumbed to external pressures.
As at press time, Chief Minister Hughes has taken custody of the Ministry of Social Development and all of its Departments. This is a huge undertaking and, by virtue of its sheer magnitude, may not be the most prudent reassignment of the portfolio. Mr Hughes will therefore now have responsibility for Finance, Economic Development, Investment, Commerce, Tourism, Immigration, Labour, Health, Health Protection, Education, Library Services, Social Development, Probation, Sports, Prisons, National Aids Office, Youth and Culture. I am not sure it is humanly possible for one Minister to effectively handle such a large portfolio, so therefore I would encourage the Honourable Chief Minister to give this some further consideration and devise a more practical and workable alternative that would not overburden him. This will ensure that Government continues to function efficiently in spite of the loss of one Minister.
Meanwhile, the Chief Minister must remain on guard. He is quite aware that Baird is a formidable political opponent. The humiliation of his dismissal is likely to be the catalyst for an unyielding attack on the AUM administration. Mr Baird has already publicly announced his intention to sit in opposition. Experience tells us that, as an astute politician, he will not make life easy for the Chief Minister and his Government.
We cannot say with any certainty that, in time to come, Mr Baird and the Honourable Chief Minister will not reconcile. After all, we know of many couples who have remarried after years of being divorced. However, the love affair is over – for now.
