My fellow Anguillians, I continue to be amazed at the callous disregard for democratic principles by the current administration. This is openly displayed in our Constitutional Reform Process. As we are all aware, the Constitutional Reform Committee, comprising representatives of political parties, members of civil society and other important stakeholders and representatives of the people, went through a very structured and detailed process of meaningful consultation with the Anguillian population, and produced a carefully considered document which outlined comprehensive recommendations that reflected the will of the people.
I have said on several occasions, and will do so again, that the piecemeal (cherry-picking) approach by the AUF in selecting specific recommendations (particularly those regarding electoral reform) from that report, to be fast-tracked by the British Government in time for the next general elections, was a betrayal of the process and the hard work of the members of the Constitutional Reform Committee. This betrayal is compounded by the flagrantly dishonest failure of the government to include in their proposed reforms important improvements to the democratic process that the Constitutional Reform Committee proposed. I believe that this edition of The Anguillian will contain a letter from the former Chair of that Committee, Justice Don Mitchell, describing that failure. I strongly recommend everyone who regards democracy as an indispensable ingredient of civilisation to read that letter to the Editor.
It is not difficult to deduce that there was an underlying motive of the AUF in this regard – to ensure that the conditions, circumstances and rules under which the next general elections in Anguilla are held will be favourable to their self-preservation as a political entity. We all are aware that, if that is the outcome, our beloved Anguilla will undoubtedly continue down the path of an unhealthy economy, lack of opportunity and prosperity for our people, increased taxes and the continued mismanagement of our limited resources. We simply cannot afford another five (5) years under the AUF. Many Anguillians know this to be true and are desperate – praying and hoping for a viable alternative to leadership and governance. In due course our prayers will be answered. Weeping may endure for a night, but Joy cometh in the morning.
While the wheels of constitutional reform continue turning, I likewise must do my duty, as Leader of the Opposition, by continuing to raise important issues to all Anguillians – the major stakeholders in this process. I must say that I am deeply troubled by the lack of meaningful consultation with the people in relation to the new Elections Act. Firstly, I believe it is important to explain the real meaning of consultation. I will begin by stating what consultation is not. Consultation is not simply an opportunity to disseminate information. This can easily be done through press releases or press conferences. Consultation is not a one sided conversation – I speak and you just listen. Most importantly, consultation is not a formality – it is a serious undertaking that must be fully ventilated and meet the proper standards. According to the Local Government Association of the United Kingdom, consultation is defined as “any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made and priorities are set”. Moreover, Her Majesty’s Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation requires seven (7) specific criteria to be met regarding effective and proper consultations. Some of these include:
• Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome.
• Consultations should normally last for 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.
• Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach.
Let us use the example of the recent consultation on the new Elections Act for Anguilla. Can you imagine my shock when less than one week before the first public consultation on the new Elections Act, which took place on May 14th, the actual document which was and is the subject of the consultation was not openly available to the public? How can you claim to have a meaningful consultation with the people on the new Elections Act, and fail to make the document available to the public with sufficient time for them to read, digest and analyse the information carefully, and formulate their questions, comments or concerns? I had to take swift action through email correspondence from my office to bring this to the attention of those with responsibility to update the government website, where the URL link to the document (the draft new Elections Act) was not activated until Monday 13th May, less than 24 hours before the first public consultation.
In addition to this, to my knowledge (and I stand open to correction), only two other public consultations are scheduled in relation to the new Elections Act for Anguilla. This is very troubling indeed and raises serious questions as to whether this process can even be called a consultation. It does not subscribe to the international standards in keeping with the practice of public consultation and lends to the following interpretation – that the AUF administration is not interested in real and meaningful consultation, but rather is simply aiming to check the boxes necessary for the British Government to approve the new constitution for our country as quickly as possible, and to activate the new rules in time for the next election. And it is equally troubling that the British Government appear to be willing collaborators in this bad faith exercise. In fact, rather than following proper procedures in relation to effective consultation, and putting the energies, resources and backing of the Ministry of Home Affairs into this exercise, the AUF leadership is more focused on announcing and executing its 2020 re-election campaign.
I believe in consultation as a fundamental principle of participatory democracy. Therefore, in meetings of the Select Committee, on constitutional reform ,I have raised this issue and several others towards deepening and strengthening our democracy for present and future generations. At the very least, public consultations on the new Elections Act should be held in every District, with ample notifications sent out through various media to alert the general public when and where these sessions will take place. Furthermore, why not utilize our recently appointed youth parliamentarians to host a special series of consultations with young, first time, voters on the new Elections Act? This would be a golden opportunity to engage the future leaders of our country in the process.
These are just a few suggestions drawn from simple consultations that I have conducted on my own, and which I am sharing in this medium because we really have to think differently about participatory democracy in this country. I am afraid that what is taking place now cannot, by any serious standards, be considered proper meaningful consultation. If we are really interested in public consultation, we have to be open, transparent and humble. We have to be willing to take constructive criticism and to consider and implement sound recommendations from the people that will help to strengthen democracy. To say that our people do not want to participate is folly – what our people need is a government that is willing to listen. Anguillians are not fools; We want real and meaningful consultation.
