The election buzz is beginning to die down. The new Government is settling in to do the people’s business. Everyone is waiting to see what approach our newly elected representatives will take to tackle the various crises affecting Anguilla: dormant economy, banking predicament, rising unemployment, violent crime. Very few people will pay attention to the preliminary report from the international observer mission on our electoral system and processes. However, it is this report that is the subject of my reflection this week.
Despite varying views of persons on the reliability and objectivity of the preliminary report, I do not believe it would be in our best interests, in the long run, if we are to simply ignore its contents and continue with business as usual. While it is true that, based on the methodology used by the mission, the report will be a reflection of the observations of its members and the views of the people with whom they interacted, we can still sift through what may be considered opinion and conjecture and identify some salient points that should be converted into concrete actions.
Firstly, the issue of voter registration. We must applaud the process of continuous voter registration. It is a progressive step which affords every eligible voter the opportunity to be registered at any time. However, what seems to be a contentious issue is the eligibility of some persons to vote based on the residence requirement which, we are aware, has been liberally interpreted by the courts given that persons can have more than one residence (eg. one in Anguilla and one outside Anguilla). Before 2020, the question we must ask ourselves is whether we want to restrict the right of Anguillians normally residing overseas to vote and, if so, to what extent. Do we want to stipulate that they must be physically resident in Anguilla for a specified period? Should they be required to own property in Anguilla? Should they have significant investments in Anguilla? If we want to change the current state of affairs, then we must make constitutional amendments to clearly define what is meant by residence. If we are happy with the status quo, then the Constitution can remain as is. Whatever our view on this matter, we must admit that this is an issue which demands national discourse.
The second is boundary delimitation. We would be hard-pressed to disagree with the mission, and the former Supervisor of Elections, that the disparity in the number of registered voters in the different districts needs to be addressed. For some time there has been the recognition that electoral boundaries should be redefined. However, we also recognize that any politician would be wary of changing electoral boundaries lest it results in his/ her political demise at the next election. I would therefore urge our new Government to address this issue of electoral boundaries early in their new term so that they themselves, the opposition and all aspiring politicians, can become accustomed to and work in the new constituencies, way ahead of 2020. Alternatively, given our small size, our Government may also want to consider getting rid of electoral boundaries altogether and simply have voting at large for a slate of candidates to run the country. Either option would be preferable and more egalitarian to the current system.
Further, as regards campaign financing, there should be some regulations, including disclosure requirements, in place to address this. (This was one of the recommendations made by the former Supervision of Elections in his 2010 report.) Requirements of this nature would help to keep politicians honest and make the public aware of the alliances that may exist between political parties and certain entities. Additionally, consideration should be given to some restriction on the sources of financing. For example, having a major developer finance a particular party’s campaign can be disastrous and compromise the ability of our leaders to meaningfully address any issues that may arise later between the developer and employees. As the old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune”.
On the issue of the media, I believe there is much room for improvement. Members of the media have a civic and professional duty to be responsible, objective and equitable in what is conveyed or disseminated to the public but, unfortunately, many fall short of this standard. While in a democracy we should be loathe to interfere with media freedom, our media personnel should always be mindful of their responsibility that accompanies their freedom.
The final aspect of the mission’s preliminary report on which I will comment is the cumbersome voting process. This is definitely an area which, we must admit, begs for some attention. The number of hours that some voters had to stand in line in order to exercise their right is a deterrent which actually compromises the realisation of the right itself. Additionally, there must be a faster and more reliable way of positively identifying a person who presents him or herself at a polling station to vote. In his 2010 report the former Supervision of Elections recommended the introduction of voter identification cards. Based on the voter identification card initiative which began on election day 2015, at least we have some indication that this is being given some attention.
I encourage our new Government to tackle these issues head on. If properly examined, and addressed, they will lead to improvements in our electoral system and contribute to a thriving democracy.
