It bodes well for the future of Anguilla that the level-headed, meaningful political discourse needed, leading up to the next general elections, has been made possible through the efforts of the Anguilla National Youth Council. This is a tangible demonstration that young people are not interested in political rhetoric, but want to be truly engaged in discussing issues affecting their future and the wellbeing of the country.
The fact that so many young persons have come forward during this election cycle to offer themselves for political office, is another indication that young people not only want to be involved as beneficiaries of the political process, or merely as active members of the electorate, but are willing to take up the responsibility of political leadership. Anguilla is blessed to have such a pool of talented, brilliant, innovative young people vying for office. Regardless of the outcome of the June 29th elections, I believe Anguilla will benefit if we actively seek ways to obtain the young people’s input in making decisions about Anguilla’s future.
The political debates, organised by the Anguilla National Youth Council, have garnered much attention all across the country by people of all ages and political persuasions. They give the electorate the opportunity to objectively measure what each candidate is able to bring to the table. The debates have been so riveting and engaging that political parties and independents have adjusted their campaign schedules to accommodate them.
The debates started in District One with Mr Oris Smith of the AUF, Dr Ellis Lorenzo Webster of the APM, and Ms Palmavon Webster, independent candidate. It was a debate between the grassroots community leader, the altruistic doctor and the experienced incumbent. The differences in the nature and style of their responses reflected the unique backgrounds and perspectives of each candidate, and the roles that they have played in uplifting the lives of the people of that district.
Up next was District Three with Mr Evans McNiel Rogers of the AUF and Mr Courtney Morton of the APM. It was a spirited battle between the experienced incumbent — a health professional — and the novel politician — a banker. Time and again we heard of ideas vs. realities, and were left to wonder how much attention we should pay to the many ideas put forward by candidates — and whether they are in touch with on the ground realities.
We also heard from District Six with Mr Cardigan Connor of the AUF, Ms Kimberly Fleming of the APM, and Mr Jamie Hodge, independent candidate. This was a very cordial debate. Mr Connor maintained his usual calm disposition, Ms Fleming provided very measured and sound responses, and Mr Hodge was quick on the draw blending the delivery of his ideas with his quick wit.
District Five came next with Mrs Evalie Bradley of the AUF, Mr Merrick Richardson of the APM, and Mr Rommel Hughes, independent candidate. It was clear from this debate that all candidates had mutual respect for each other. The incumbent was not at any advantage based on her five years in office. Mr Hughes dominated the floor with his ready responses making use of every moment of time allotted to him. Mr Richardson was not to be outdone, and demonstrated that he had given much thought to many of the issues raised in the questions posed.
The District Four debate featured the Honourable Premier Victor Banks of the AUF, and Ms DeeAnn Kentish-Rogers of the APM. It was a cordial showdown between the statesman and the rising star politician. As expected, the Premier delivered sound responses, in some instances schooled his opponent, but did not seek to “one-up” Ms Kentish-Rogers as perhaps he may have been prone to do with another opponent of hisage and experience. Ms Kentish-Rogers, on the other hand, demonstrated that she is no shrinking violet and is prepared to go head to head with her opponent.Her responses reflected her intellect and analytical thought in addressing the issues.
Perhaps the most anticipated debate was the District Six debate involving Mr Curtis Richardson of the AUF, and Mr Haydn Hughes of the APM. The discourse was definitely meaningful and highly spirited as is characteristic of both candidates but, oftentimes, rather than answer the questions posed, the candidates used the opportunity to talk about extraneous issues to make the points they wanted to make. I’m not sure if anyone got a better understanding of these candidates from this debate. It probably served to confirm for most people what they already knew.
At the time of publication, we would not have had the benefit of the District Two debate, but we expect that Mrs Cora Richardson-Hodge of the AUF, and Mr Jerome Roberts of the APM, will engage in meaningful discourse to allow voters a better insight into what they stand for.
These debates have demonstrated for me that there is a place for all of us on Anguilla’s political landscape. This should not be a battle between old and young, experience and inexperience, continuity or change. Rather, it should be about harnessing the best of all of us — our collective talent, experience, innovative ideas, competence and abilities — to build a better Anguilla.
