7th July 2015
Dear Sir
Appointment of the Second Nominated Member – a missed opportunity and a narrow choice reflective of a limited political perspective
Let me begin by congratulating Mr. Paul Harrigan on his appointment to the House of Assembly and express my wishes to him and his for a successful tenure. I do not know him personally, have never met him, have seen him and I know of him and of course his family. I also had the pleasure of meeting, if ever so briefly, his wife, whose name escapes me but who, being from Belize, we had something to talk about granted my knowledge of that Central American country and I do remember her, granted how rare it is to have a Belizean amongst us. I have heard, read and do believe that based on his background – academic, professional, business, and otherwise – Mr. Harrigan is indeed qualified to sit in the highest law-making body in Anguilla and, at minimum, is no less qualified to so sit, than anyone else who currently sits there or have ever sat there before him.
In exercising her discretion to make the said appointment, the Governor was guided by the Anguilla Constitution Order 1982 as amended, which simply provides in section 35 (3) – in speaking of the composition of the House of Assembly – that “Of the two nominated members, one shall be appointed by the Governor acting in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister, and the other shall be appointed by the Governor acting after consultation with the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, if any.” Based on this, it is clear that it was her decision to make and she made it after, I am advised, consulting with the Chief Minister and Ms. Webster. It is equally clear that part of her reasoning must have been her desire to provide support to the Opposition bench granted that only one member sits there. This is indeed a noble approach, representing rational reasoning and should be commended.
However, it is my view that the appointment of Mr. Harrigan is a missed opportunity, narrow in its scope and perspective and totally ignores certain basic political considerations and realities. Firstly, while it is not a constitutional or legal requirement that the second nominated member comes from any political constituency, and by this I do not mean electoral/district constituency but rather a segment of the population holding a particular political position or set of positions distinct and apart from another, it would have been wise had this position gone to someone from the Anguilla United Movement (AUM). I do not mean any of the unsuccessful candidates but someone representing its school of political thought, approach, policies and brain trust.
Whatever one thinks of the AUM, and the last government, the fact remains that the AUM is the second largest party on Anguilla and is the main opposition party. Ms. Webster and now Mr. Harrigan cannot claim to be representative of either of those since they are not part of any political party and have little, to no, support outside District 1. In fact, Ms. Webster received just 35.14% of the votes in her District and is a minority representative winning the seat by a mere 26 votes. This, of course, is all legal and normal under our First Past the Post (FPP) system but is worth noting.
While the AUM may not be the official opposition in the House of Assembly, it is the main opposition party in Anguilla and represents a significant percentage of the Anguillian electorate. As constituted, this current House of Assembly does not represent or reflect their voices, their voters, their perspective and this is indeed an unfortunate situation which the Governor had a chance to remedy and failed to do, in my opinion. Her discretion does not appear to be circumscribed by the constitutional provision mentioned above, but neither is it clear that said provision is wide enough to say that she could have made the appointment in her own deliberate judgment ignoring the recommendations of either the Chief Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. I have been advised by eminent local Queen’s Counsel Mr. Thomas Astaphan that in exercising her discretion the Governor simply needs to consult both persons and then make a decision. She is not bound to follow the advice of either party, and the decision is hers alone. Thus, this allows for a Governor, conscious of these issues, to provide for the voices of the AUM to be heard.
Secondly, the Opposition bench in Westminster Parliamentary democracies is not only Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition but, more importantly, a government-in-waiting. No one can seriously argue that Ms. Webster, either in and of herself, or even with others, can be leader of a government-in-waiting granted what I shall now say. Mr. Harrigan’s addition to her team does not, in any way, change this dynamic. If Ms. Webster wished to broaden her appeal beyond District 1, to say break out of her self-imposed box as an independent candidate, then she would have been better off choosing someone from another electoral district which she failed to do by choosing Mr. Harrigan who is from her own District. Thus, she may have reinforced her position in District 1 but consigned herself to being totally unrepresentative of Districts 2 to 7 in her role as Leader of the Opposition. It is therefore ironic, then, that the only possible government-in-waiting would be the AUM, again unrepresented in the House of Assembly.
Thirdly, to those who may defend and justify this appointment and, of course, I have already admitted that there are grounds upon which to defend it, by arguing that Ms. Webster needed help on the Opposition bench, that argument is undermined by her choice of Mr. Harrigan. Mr. Harrigan is as inexperienced in Parliament as Ms. Webster, and even more inexperienced in Anguillian politics than she is, thus he adds nothing to her, above and beyond that which she brings or could bring with outside advice. He has, as far as I am aware, no known, documented either in print or orally, well-thought out positions on any area of public policy whether it be economics, financial services, education, the environment, our relationship with the UK, regionalism etc, that would commend himself to Ms. Webster in her role and thus advance her interests and objectives. The way to advance the argument that Ms. Webster needed help on the Opposition bench would have been for her to choose, or rather suggest to Her Excellency, someone more or equally versed than she is in politics or Parliament with a wide depth and breadth of knowledge of the issues facing Anguilla – and Mr. Harrigan does not fit either of those descriptions.
Some may argue that the people had a choice to elect an AUM representative and chose not to. To those I say, that may be so but should all the voices of those who did vote for the AUM be dismissed with such a casual comment granted the FPP system which does not allow for proportionality? Also, aren’t these our fellow Anguillians whose voices should indeed still be heard as equal belongers of our land and with whom we live, work and pray on a daily basis?
Others may also argue that the Opposition, given its small size, should work as a team and an AUM representative there would not lend itself to this. Indeed that may or may not be a fair point but between 2005 and 2010 we had a situation where the two Opposition Members came from two different political parties. So disagreeable were they, amongst themselves, that no Leader of the Opposition could be appointed. Of course, we all know what happened later on but the point remains that we have had experience before where the Opposition Members were not on the same page and, indeed, there is no legal or constitutional requirement that they be.
To those who may dismiss my arguments, and assign to them motives which I am sure they will, as is their right to do, I wish to ask them to think how this matter would have been addressed had Mr. Othlyn Vanterpool won District 1. In such a scenario would it have been ideal for our democracy to appoint a Second Nominated Member aligned with the current government thus ignoring all the non-Anguilla United Front (AUF) supporters? I submit that the answer is no. If then one agrees that said position should be held by someone from the opposition, then from which political party would this Second Nominated Member come if not the AUM which would have won the second largest number of votes even under that scenario? When examined through this pair of lens, I am sure that my argument makes more sense.
It would have been my preference, as expressed elsewhere, that this position be given to someone who could focus on pushing the financial services industry. However, with that option closed by design of those involved, then at least some measure of democratic proportionality could have been achieved and that too is not reflective in this appointment.
I excerpt below the section of my previous letter – to your newspaper of April 2015 – which was unpublished, wherein I set out my views on the type of person who in my humble opinion should have be appointed to this position:
“Finally, on the unsolicited advice section, Chief Minister, and here I am also now addressing the Leader of the Opposition, I would urge that you both agree that the Second Nominated Member should be someone from the financial services industry. Traditionally, all focus has been placed on tourism and I feel that this is an opportunity to depoliticize this post. The idea, and you may both discard it in your collective wisdom, is that the person will be tasked with speaking on financial services issues in the House on a non-partisan basis. The person should, in addition, be given the full-time task of overseeing the work of Anguilla Finance, representing the Government of Anguilla dealing with the international initiatives and should be involved in drafting legislation to develop the industry. Obviously, the candidates are limited and few but I submit that this idea is worth considering. I say upfront that I am not interested in such a position, if this route is followed, but someone needs to focus on financial services if we are to develop it as opposed to continue talking about developing it as we have been doing, with all due respect, since 1995.
“I urge that you all do not use this position as a political gift to reward a favoured supporter but to rise above the norm and appoint someone who can deal with the financial services issues specifically, the way tourism has always had a champion.”
Finally, I wish to end my thoughts with some political humour which I don’t make at anyone’s expense. In the world of political rhetoric, when commenting on an appointment, there is no better way to express disagreement than perhaps to say that, “this is the worst appointment since Roman Emperor Caligula nominated his favourite horse, Incitatus, to be a senator.” I won’t go so far as to make this comparison here but this is a great political line to remember, and I leave it to the reader to do some research as to the history of Caligula, and the story of his horse, which may or may not be rooted in fact depending on who you read and in whom you place your belief.
While I disagree with this appointment, it is made and we must, and I sure will, respect it – but we are equally within our right to express our views, and this I have chosen to do in as respectful a manner as I can. So to Mr. Harrigan, I again extend my warmest congratulations to you and urge you to rise to the occasion and make the most of this opportunity, which has been presented to you, for the benefit of people of Anguilla. All the best.
Yours faithfully,
Carlyle K Rogers
Barrister-at-law
