The Anguilla Constitution is supposed to be the blueprint for the operations of Government in Anguilla and for relations between elected officials and the Governor and by extension the United Kingdom Government (UKG). The Constitution identifies the Governor’s areas of responsibility and those of the Executive Council. Our five elected ministers make up the majority in the Executive Council.
Once upon a time, Anguilla was described by elected officials as a self-governing island. This description appeared to accord some level of autonomy to Anguilla’s elected representatives. Today, even the appearance of autonomy seems to be missing. Ministers constantly reference the UKG as the basis for doing or failing to do something. One glaring representation, regularly made by the Premier and other elected ministers, is the need for UKG approval to spend the significant revenue the Government boasts of having collected. The representations often leave listeners with the impression that our elected officials are simply subject to the dictates of the UKG.
Are we now subject to a new dispensation or, was it always the case that the UKG was pivotal in the decision making of our elected government? Some might say that the difference is in the varying styles, approaches and attitudes of our elected governments over the years. There is no doubt that the previous administrations, led by Ronald Webster, Emile Gumbs, Osbourne Fleming, Hubert Hughes and Victor Banks, all had to engage with the UKG in the governance of Anguilla. It appears, however, that during these individuals’ terms in office, Anguilla’s citizenry and residents were never left with the impression that they were simply subject to the dictates of the UKG. A review of correspondence between previous elected leaders and British officials, establishes clearly that they did not simply accept the dictates of the UKG but pursued their agenda for Anguilla in their own style. This appears to be missing today.
Is it that there is now an attitude of such gratitude for ‘gifts’ bestowed in Anguilla’s recent times of great need that we now see the UKG as having the right to have the final say, when it comes to charting Anguilla’s course? The expression “there is no free lunch” seems to have taken on even more far-reaching implications. It appears some things have been and are being quietly accepted to ensure that gifts are not withheld.
The price of a gift is sometimes too high. In such a case, deliberate consideration must be given to the price or likely price of the gift when it is being offered. If the price is too high, it might be in the best interest of country and people to decline the gift and seek other options for the delivery of the needs of country and people. We appear to be rapidly losing any autonomy we had and there is no apparent effort to slow progress in that respect.
Areas that ought to be of national interest are often simply referenced as being the purview of the Governor when answers are sought as to what is being done to address certain situations. This has been seen in relation to security on the island and in respect of the long wait for the appointment of a Director of Social Security.
National interest should demand that our elected government take, and demonstrate, an active interest in matters of national interest, irrespective of where the Constitution says ultimate authority lies. Instead, elected officials often seem content to allow greater authority to be assumed by the Governor in relation to the island’s affairs.
Is this the case with the Anguilla Commercial Registry, which is establishing a new relationship with the Financial Services Commission? The Governor has authority over the Financial Services Commission. Her remit, it now appears, will be extended to cover the activities of the Commercial Registry. In respect of self- governance, Anguilla appears to be proceeding in the wrong direction. Can this be remedied by a change in the style, approach and attitude of our elected officials?
