LAST SATURDAY, I wrote the attached letter to His excellency, the Governor, following a meeting I had held with the leaders of the other opposition parties in Anguilla, Dr Lorenzo Webster and Mr Jerome Roberts of the Anguilla United Movement and Mr Sutcliffe Hodge of the Dove Party, to discuss the current constitutional and electoral reform process.
Our discussions were enlightening. They also reminded us all that, as a people, there are more things that unite us than divide us. We are now in the process of following up on that letter by putting together submissions to send to Lord Ahmad, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the United Kingdom.
We are seeking the Governor’s counsel and guidance, and the British Government’s support, to ensure broader consultation on the issue of a new constitution. This is especially necessary in view of the fact that the Anguilla Government apparently proposes to cherry pick selected proposals contained in the Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee and, moreover, to attempt to defy all precedent and convention by seeking to persuade the British Government to enact changes to the constitution by Order in Council to take effect prior to the next election. It is unheard of – and should not be entertained by the British Government – that changes which could benefit the incumbent government electorally should be brought in until after the election following such changes.
We are hopeful that the meeting and our joint action will be the beginning of a new coalition of interests by patriots. We are setting the standard that, even though we belong to different political parties, there are fundamental issues of national interest on which we should be able to unite. We are confident that the Governor, and in due course Lord Ahmad, will take note of this national coalition in his deliberations. Jointly we represent more Anguillians than the Victor Banks regime – a significant block of people whose voices should not be ignored.
Our motivation, needless to say, is both to protect and to enhance our democracy, to secure a beyond-reproach system that is reflective of the dreams and aspirations of you, the people. There are issues of governance that cannot be adopted through a unilateral political stance, even if it is from those currently in power. Anything but a genuinely open and transparent bi-lateral approach will deepen scepticism and put a gulf between the people and the very system in which we beg their engagement.
Constitutional Reform is not merely an academic pursuit, but a fundamental endeavour that informs the very way we live. It is worth repeating that you, the people, speaking through the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee, have made some far-reaching suggestions which, if implemented, will broaden our democracy, strengthen our system of governance, and will finally afford us a constitution that we can relate to. We have been informed that the government has decided in its final recommendations to the Governor to omit some of the Committee’s most fundamental recommendations, although it appears not to have disclosed which. The government should not water down a people’s desire for change by its own fancy, or for its own one-sided advantage. At least they owe it to the population to explain their reasons for the omissions, but they have been silent as to what they disagree with, even, apparently, in their correspondence with Lord Ahmad.
We, the opposition parties, are in full agreement that there should be no rush to implement a diluted constitution until the processes of consultation and information are exhausted. One aspect of the proposals that we want to debate further, before action, is the issue of electoral reform, which is a significant part of the constitutional reform process. Any electoral reform must take place amidst broad consultation and must not be done at the 11th hour on the eve of an election or in such a way as to affect such election to the incumbent government’s advantage.
We are strongly of the view that the system needs to be overhauled, and that we must have a process that prevents electoral fraud and other malpractices. That is not what we are protesting here. The concept of expanding the representation to perhaps even accommodate at-large candidates is in principle a good one, for example. But it is obvious that such a change should not be made at this stage, so close to a general election, and before widespread information and awareness campaigns, including a direct involvement of all the political parties. Anything short of those requirements will lead to confusion and chaos and, in the end, undermine the very process we are looking to strengthen.
