It’s been almost 50 years since the majority of Britain’s Caribbean colonies gained independence, and while Britain left in place its political institutions and norms, based on the Westminster model of government, it failed to make sure that the true intent of the said institutions and norms was maintained.
In his biography of the late Robert L. Bradshaw, “From Commoner to King”, Whitman T. Browne asserts that while Britain did transfer the forms of its governmental institutions to the area, it did not commit itself to the substance of democracy. He goes on to say that Britain did not encourage mass political participation in the Caribbean islands.
It now appears that since the majority of its colonies gained independence, the region has undergone radical changes. Globalization, the international drug trade, rising crime levels and the economic downturn are undermining the power of state in the region. Liberal democracy, which the Westminster model was assumed to produce, is now under existential threat (Girvan, 2011).
While the Westminster model was transplanted to twelve Caribbean countries, an assortment of factors, dates of independence, size, populations and ethnic demographics have determined the extent of success or failure. It was not for want of trying. The Caribbeanized model which resulted in ‘winner takes all’ politics; long periods of one party domination; rubber-stamp parliaments; the entrenchment of patronage systems and tribalism (Clegg) – all of which seem to work to its detriment. So the question that needs to be asked is: Has the Westminster model contributed to how and where we are now? A quick perusal of Charles Wilkin’s Q.C.’s “Breaking the Cycle” will go a long way in instituting the needed remedies.
Mr. Wilkin says the rule of law can be overcome by the rule of man if the people are not vigilant, especially as in our case. Anguilla lacks many of the traditional features of a constitutional democracy to promote accountability of the executive. He goes on to list several changes – freedom of information, term limits, fiscal responsibility, issue ballots, election of Speaker, strengthening the right to free speech, election of an Ombudsman and checks and balances are just a few.
Be that as it may, we in the Caribbean seem not to appreciate this great gift that was begrudgingly given to us –Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy. This view was shared by former High Court Judge Herbert Volney. He said: “We in the Caribbean have had to spill little or no blood for the political ground earned and seemingly fail to appreciate the value of the meaning of the constitutions granted us by the British.”
Though we have a constitution which should act as a framework for our democracy, we tend to cherry pick those aspects that suit our individual agendas, a practice that’s inherent throughout the Caribbean; Trinidad and Tobago, Dominica and who can forget St. Kitts and Nevis. “We have gone awry of the spirit of our constitutions by following them only in the letter and not in their inherent spirit.” So says Herbert Volney.
We’ve seen time after time when the Speaker of the House behaved in a manner not conducive to good governance. Just last week, I felt compelled to write about what I overheard emanating from the House of Assembly. The Lone Opposition Member, Ms. Palmavon Webster, launched a Motion of No Confidence (MONC) against the Victor F. Banks government.
Prior to bringing the MONC, the Opposition leader, proposed a series of questions to the Honorable Chief Minister. The Chief Minister decided to provide blanket responses with very few words to questions one through thirteen. He repeated the same process for questions fourteen and fifteen – and to question sixteen, he outright told the Leader of the Opposition that it was: “None of her business.”
I waited with bated breath for the Speaker to make some sort of ruling, anything at this point, and he said nothing. When the Opposition Leader was making her presentation, she was constantly being interrupted by the CM with points of order, with accusations that the Opposition was imputing his character. What was even more despicable and reprehensible was the Speaker’s obvious bias, when he too accused the Opposition of imputing the Chief Minister’s character.
It is said that the Opposition is entitled to its say and the Government is entitled to its way. But when the Speaker frustrates the Opposition by running interference for the Government, the people are the ones who wind up on the short end of the stick. The Speaker’s job is that of an impartial arbitrator, but in Anguilla that is not the case.
This newspaper, in its editorial about three weeks ago, questioned the motives of the Opposition Leader for bringing such a motion knowing full well that it stood very little chance of passing. To his credit, this Editor researched the viability of confidence motions and discovered, according to Richard Kelley in a House of Commons publication called Confidence Motions, that: “…the majority of censure motions moved by the opposition will be in circumstances when the parliamentary arithmetic can provide it with no real prospect of winning the vote. And while it may the only way of holding the government accountable, it also obliges it to defend itself, explain its policies, and justify its actions to its backbenchers, to the opposition, and through this, the country as a whole.”
Needless to say, the Opposition, nor the people, nor those so-called backbenchers, ever got the benefit of this Government having to defend its actions, for no one seconded the motion and in the process denied the people of Anguilla the chance to hear this Government justify its actions on a host of issues, but in particular the illegal Banking Bill that is threatening to destroy Anguilla.
The Honorable Member of the Opposition goes into the House of Assembly not so much for the sake of opposing everything that the government wants to do – on the contrary. But this incessant disrespect by the Chief Minister is despicable and reprehensible, and the Speaker, allowing unfettered, the constant abuse and interruptions, shows either the lack of knowledge of how the House is supposed to operate, or he just doesn’t care.
To those of you who are now enjoying the fruits of those who came before you, let me remind you that the Anguilla that you now enjoy came at a steep price. The lifestyle that you now enjoy came about because we marched, we picketed, we guarded the beaches at night, we wrote letters, we sang and yes, threw stones, so that we could determine our own destiny.
So when you try to stifle dissent, I would like to remind you all of the effort that allows you to enjoy the style of life to which you’ve become accustomed. We have seen attempts to stifle dissent in other parts of the Caribbean, most recently in St. Vincent and Dominica where legislation was being introduced that would make it illegal to write or say anything against the respective governments, and I’ve no doubt that, based on what’s being said out there, it might not be very long before attempts are made to curtail our voices.
Last week I listened to the House, after the Honorable Member of the Opposition Ms. Webster, finally, brought her (MONC) and, just prior to that, she introduced a motion to examine the need for funds to work on Island Harbor’s infrastructure. No sooner had she finished, the CM took exception to the wording and wanted it to read a certain way which was all well and good, but it didn’t stop there.
The member from Valley North jumped into the fray and berated the member from Island Harbour telling her that she made a rookie mistake, the same member who walked out of the House before voicing opposition to what Hubert Hughes was about to do with regard to the banks. Not only was that a rookie mistake, it showed a lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedures — he who lives in glass houses does not throw stones. The decent thing for you to have done was to keep your mouth shut and stay seated if you had nothing constructive to say. It’s time to go, for you have done nothing worthwhile of late, except collect your salary.
In light of what has happened and continues to happen throughout the region, the question now becomes does the Westminster model still work? When we see what has happened in Trinidad, in Dominica, in St. Kitts and Nevis and, recently in, Anguilla, where the Speaker of the House acts as though he is the voice of the government, we’re forced to ask the question: Is this what Britain intended?
Whatever the answer is, going forward, it’s apparent that time is of the essence here given that our status as an Overseas Territory just became more uncertain than at any other time. The fact that we’ve got so many problems, inherited and self-inflicted with no wiggle room to fix them, should not be lost on anyone. We’re like the space capsule upon re-entry back into earth’s atmosphere. We have got one chance to get it right. Miss it and who knows what the future holds? — If not us, then who, and if not now, when? Until then, may God continue to bless us and may he continue to bless Anguilla.
