As I write this column we are on the eve of celebrating forty-seven years after the Anguilla Revolution — an event that we call Anguilla Day. It has evolved not only into a period when we celebrate the past but also when we look forward to the future. It is a time of celebration but also a time of reflection. A time when we question whether we are still on course with what the early revolutionaries “visioned” — or whether we have lost our way. Very often it is a matter of opinion — but inevitably one of the common statements frequently repeated is that we are not as united today as we were forty-seven years ago. Someone said perhaps we were forced to be united because we had a common foe. I, however, remain convinced that there are many common goals and aspirations that must unite us still.
Last year the Father of the Nation, the Honourable James Ronald Webster, indicated that he would not be making anymore public appearances. In his own words, he said: “My desire is to withdraw from public life and celebration, and to devote the closing years of my life in communion with my God who has always been with me in the difficult years of our Revolution.” So, like last year, we will once again not be graced by Mr. Webster’s regal presence at the Anguilla Day Official Ceremony. The tragedy of this will be especially for the youngsters who may not have had the opportunity to see this distinguished icon of our Revolution up close and personal on our National Day but, equally, I am certain that his absence will take a bit of aura out of the celebrations for many of us, particularly the awardees.
But Mr. Webster has outlived many of the heroes and heroines of the Revolution. One of his staunch foot soldiers of that period, Mr. Claudius Lake, sadly slipped away this week in the midst of the national celebrations. Let me take this opportunity to thank him for his contribution and to commiserate with his family, relatives, and friends who now mourn his loss. His late wife Nardine, also a heroine of the Revolution, will no doubt be pleased to greet him on the other side. May his soul rest in peace!
But as we celebrate the Anguilla Revolution this week, and bemoan the lack of unity among us, we may be led to wonder what the concept of “unity” really means for us. The Oxford Dictionary defines unity as the state of being united or forming a whole. However, in the Oxford Thesaurus we also come across a number of concepts synonymous with “unity” – for example: agreement; harmony; accord; concord; unison; union and unanimity. These terms carry different shades and varying degrees of the concept of unity. A good question is what do most of us mean when we say that Anguilla is not united as it was during the Revolution — or when we say that the problem in Anguilla is that we are not united.
Over the years I have had some very interesting observations about what we mean in Anguilla when we use the term “unity” or “united”. Let me list some of them:
• Some say we are not united because we have different views on particular subjects.
• Some say we are not united because we have political parties.
• Some say we are not united because we do not have the same interests.
• Some say we are not united because we seem more prepared to tear someone down than to build someone up.
• Some say we are not united because we have become less kind to one another in thought, word and deed.
• Some say we are not united because the spirit of “jollification” seems to have disappeared.
• Some say we are not united because we tend to reinforce the differences between us – like the “east vs. west” mentality.
These examples are not exhaustive but they show that our views as to what constitutes a lack of unity or disunity can be triggered by different circumstances. So that in some instances the synonym “harmony” is more specific in describing the appropriate condition than the other synonym “unanimity”. In other words, the conditions for being effective do not necessarily suggest a lack of differences but rather the existence of cooperation.
So if unity is a desirable element of nation-building we must then decide how to create unity among our people in the most practical way. As I mentioned earlier, we may not find a common foe but we can certainly find common issues around which we all can coalesce. You may be surprised how many issues there are that can cause us to cast aside divisions and lead to the freedom, peace and prosperity of which the Father of the Nation spoke. Let me give you a few examples of goals and aspirations that can unite us to achieve:
• A steady, accessible and reliable water system.
• A robust Renewable Energy project.
• A well-thought out program to eradicate crime and gun violence in our communities.
• A program to create awareness for the protection of our beaches; fishing stock and other marine resources.
• Universal access to vocational and tertiary education.
• A national health insurance project.
• Enhancing our image as a tourism destination.
• Building a more civil society.
All of these issues are non-political and can be embraced by all parties and independents alike. As a consequence, by focusing on such issues, we can promote more unity in our communities. These are wholesome issues that can have a positive effect on our development and, since they are non-controversial and appear in practically every party manifesto, we can safely agree on a national agenda that can have a unifying effect on our society. In this election year, when the tendency is towards division and one-upmanship, it would be interesting to see whether we can promote consensus on such positive issues. It could lead to the building of “a nation proud strong and free”. But what an endorsement it would be if the Father of the Nation could be encouraged to return on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Revolution and proclaim that the vision is nigh complete. That would be worth it all!!
