Very often in Anguilla good policy proposals, or essential public or private initiatives, are not implemented or are delayed for a considerable period, while public officials spend what appears to be an inordinate amount of time identifying every flaw in the proposed policy or initiative, without attempting to offer a meaningful solution. This serves no useful purpose but still appears to prevail, while the real goal of the policy or initiative is lost.
Good policy development, or the proper implementation of public or private initiatives, requires an examination of all available options to determine their potential benefits and burdens. However, to do this effectively one must consider what the policy or initiative is ultimately seeking to achieve. This involves identifying the intended beneficiaries and what will optimally serve the needs of the beneficiaries. Where burdens are identified, prudent practice requires that consideration be given to how those burdens can be overcome. The cost of overcoming those burdens must be measured against the benefits to be gained by the intended beneficiaries.
Today, in Anguilla, we can legitimately wonder whether these principles are considered when public officials make determinations on public policy development or the implementation of public or private initiatives. New tourism initiatives, quite rightly, receive the attention of various stakeholders in the tourism industry, not least among them being tourists themselves. In determining whether a tourism initiative should be favourably considered, who do we consider to be the primary beneficiaries to whom primary consideration must be given? Is it the foreign direct investor, the tourist, or the Anguillian? While public officials must consider the views, needs and desires of all stakeholders, which stakeholder is paramount?
While the willingness of foreign direct investors, and tourists, to contribute to the development of our island must always be appreciated, the views, needs and desires of Anguillians, whose only real option may be to make a life for themselves in Anguilla, must be paramount. Is this always the case when tourism-related developments are considered and, if it is, is it made apparent to the Anguillians? The visible assurance that Anguillians are first, in all public policy considerations, and when reviewing public and private initiatives, would go a long way towards allaying unwarranted fears and the consequential delays to policy development and the implementation of initiatives. Visible assurances can only be given through the words and actions of public officials. Elected and appointed pubic officials must strive to convey, through their words and actions, their intention to do right to Anguillians in all their deliberations and decisions. A huge step forward in achieving this will be made when public officials work with Anguillians to resolve issues pertaining to public and private initiatives rather than merely identifying potential obstacles.
Consideration must also be given to who is the primary beneficiary when considering the relationship between Anguilla and the United Kingdom. Anguilla’s relationship with the United Kingdom requires that the approval or acquiescence of the UK Government must be obtained before certain public initiatives are approved and implemented. Does the UKG in determining whether an initiative should or should not be approved actively consider the intended beneficiaries of that initiative? This is a very real question in the context of the £60,000,000.00 grant provided to Anguilla by the UKG, in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. Is Anguilla receiving the full benefit of the grant? How much of the grant funds have been, or will be used, to compensate UK connected individuals or entities for services rendered? Are the decision-making processes, in relation to the release of funds, designed to ensure that the benefit of the grant funds is apparent and appreciated by the intended beneficiaries at the earliest opportunity? A very pertinent question is whether decisions are being made with a view to our schools returning to a state of normalcy in the shortest possible time?
Public officials, whether they are GoA or UKG officials, must recognise and be responsive to the views, needs and desires of intended beneficiaries in their decision-making processes. Until this becomes apparent suspicion, justified or unjustified, will prevail, resulting in unwarranted delays in the making of decisions and the implementation of essential initiatives.
