Approximately two and a half years ago I penned the following editorial captioned: What do we want from Governor Scott? In that editorial, I set out what I thought was a fair representation of what the people of Anguilla expected from our Governor. As Governor Scott approaches the end of her tenure (unless it is extended), I thought it would be useful to review those expectations and allow you the opportunity to reflect on whether or not they have been met. Here is what I wrote back then:
“It has been approximately seven weeks since we welcomed a new Governor to our shores. We did so with much anticipation of an improved relationship with the UK Government. Since her arrival, we have observed the efforts made by the Governor to integrate herself in the Anguillian community. She has been observed visiting various communities, shopping in supermarkets, attending church services, carnival and community events and generally familiarising herself with the Anguillian people and the Anguillian way of life. Her Excellency has also established a very active social media platform and her musings can be viewed by the public on her facebook and twitter pages. While some may question the relevance or appropriateness of her social media postings, her efforts at understanding this new community, in which she now lives, must be applauded. I am sure we can think of many examples of Governors who have served in Anguilla but who made no effort whatsoever to know, far less understand, the Anguillian people.
“In an interview held on 2nd September in relation to her appointment as Governor, Her Excellency indicated that she believes that both the British Government and the people of Anguilla want the same things for Anguilla: a sustainable economy and a secure community. She also intimated that she was still in the process of learning what the people of Anguilla want from a Governor. It is to this that I turn my attention.
“I believe the answer to that question can be simply put: the people of Anguilla want a Governor who (1) understands their needs and aspirations, and (2) advances the principles of good governance. The approach being taken so far by the Governor is useful in relation to the first requirement. However, the accomplishment of the second will require considerable commitment. For the purposes of this commentary, I have extracted the following, from the website of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in seeking to explain good governance:
“There is no single and exhaustive definition of “good governance,” nor is there a delimitation of its scope, that commands universal acceptance…. However, there is a significant degree of consensus that good governance relates to political and institutional processes and outcomes that are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of development. It has been said that good governance is the process whereby public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources and guarantee the realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption, and with due regard for the rule of law…. The key question is: are the institutions of governance effectively guaranteeing the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food, quality education, fair justice and personal security?”
“I am of the view that the fact that, constitutionally, the Governor is vested with Executive Authority for Anguilla on behalf of her Majesty, means that the Governor, her local office and the relevant arms of the British Government are all also “institutions of governance” in relation to Anguilla. The fact that the Governor’s office has always stressed its role in upholding good governance is recognition of that responsibility. However, I believe this must be taken further. Not only should the Governor be concerned with upholding the principles of good governance, but advancing good governance as well. In other words these “institutions of governance” to which I have referred should demonstrate a commitment to good governance in more tangible ways than the current oversight mechanism. Since the key question is: “are the institutions of governance effectively guaranteeing the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food, quality education, fair justice and personal security?”, the question we need to ask Governor Scott is what will you, your local office and the British Government do to guarantee the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food, quality education, fair justice and personal security of the Anguillian people? This is what we want from our Governor.
“Like the rest of the world, Anguilla has been hard hit by the economic crisis. We are in the throes of an economic meltdown – we have a sluggish economy, rising unemployment, increased taxation, increasing numbers seeking public assistance, a banking sector that is under siege, demands for further slashes in Government expenditure and deteriorating physical and social infrastructure. We have been informed of the efforts made by our Government (also an “institution of governance”) to get us past this crisis. Yet one of the key “institutions of governance” has only seen it fit to offer “technical assistance”. Does this accord with advancing good governance as outlined previously? Absolutely not. Technical assistance has its time and place. I am a proponent of the saying that if you “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life.” However, before you can teach a starving man how to fish, you must first feed him. Similarly, no one teaches a drowning man how to swim. He must first be rescued.
“Anguilla is sinking while the good governance watchdogs do nothing but watch. It is abominable that the British Government can give millions of pounds in financial assistance to countries in Africa and other parts of the globe, but for its own Overseas Territory there is no rescue mission, not even a life jacket. The offers of technical assistance at this juncture are akin to sending persons to swim alongside a drowning man, giving directions as to how he can improve his chances of survival. No real results can reasonably be expected from such a strategy. What would be reasonable is for this sort of assistance to follow or accompany a significant injection of funds from the UK Government.
“What do we want from you, Governor Scott? We want the “institution of governance” of which you are a part to advance the principles of good governance and ensure that the social and economic needs of the people of Anguilla are met. Simply being the governance watchdog for the Anguillian Government is not what is most needed at this time. For the people of Anguilla, your success will be measured by whether or not you and the institution you represent made every possible effort to save Anguilla from economic disaster.”
We are now in 2016 and I ask: has Governor Scott met these expectations or has she been complicit in pushing Anguilla closer to the abyss? Has she truly understood the needs and aspirations of the Anguillian people and communicated these to her London counterparts, or does she believe (like they do) that they know what is best for the people of Anguilla? Has she demonstrated commitment to all aspects of governance or does her commitment end with ensuring the protection of the UK Government and taxpayers? You be the judge. How would you rate her tenure?
