Assuming a leadership role in Anguilla may sometimes come easy but what comes after often is not easy. Persons who seek to assume leadership roles in Anguilla should not be faint of heart. Experience says that Anguillians can be contrary people.
It is unlikely that Anguilla’s leaders expected the path to Constitutional and Electoral Reform to be straight and smooth. Knowing Anguillians, as we anticipate our leaders do, it is most likely that they anticipated exactly what has transpired and is likely to transpire in the future.
We often speak on issues when we are ill informed. Many of us deny ourselves opportunities to be informed when such opportunities are offered. Too many of us usually wait until the eleventh hour to influence national decisions, and, when we do, our response is often subjective and combative, rather than objective and well reasoned. This attitude resulted in a fragmented Anguilla Team meeting with the UK Team, during the negotiations which spanned 19th to 21st November, 2019. It is apparent from documents utilised during the negotiations, which found their way into the public domain, that the UK Team members were unified in their approach and their observations about Anguilla’s draft constitutional provisions. This was in stalk contrast to the Anguilla Team which comprised at least three individuals who considered it appropriate and necessary to issue statements, on the eve of the negotiations, which clearly established that the Anguilla Team was fragmented.
A bone of contention on the part of some members of the Anguilla Team was in respect to the timing of the negotiations. In typical fashion, it appears that a failure to communicate resulted in persons publicly engaging on an issue when in essence all the relevant parties were in agreement. Sadly, this is often the result when politicians, in their bid to gain political mileage, seek to upstage each other in the public domain. Those who took the time to listen would realise that there was general agreement by the UK Team and all facets of the Anguilla Team, that the negotiations would continue beyond the 2020 Elections. This essentially ensures that the administration, which assumes office following the 2020 Election, having received the mandate of the people, can legitimately progress the Constitutional Negotiations.
This collective positions not necessarily reflective of initial views. The Anguilla United Front (AUF) Administration was accused of cherry picking when it advanced certain Constitutional and Electoral Reform provisions earlier this year. It appeared that little attention was paid to the fact that the provisions advanced were essentially those that had been advocated for consistently over the years and which many persons are now eagerly taking advantage of. Assurances were given by the AUF, in a correspondence dated 29th January, 2019 from Chief Minister Victor F. Banks to Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Minister of State of the Overseas Territories, that the other recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee would be addressed in a particular manner and within a particular timeline.
The assurances included holding discussions with all members of the Anguilla House of Assembly; making revisions to the draft Constitution where considered appropriate; holding public consultations on the draft Constitution to allow further input; finalising the draft Constitution to be negotiated with the UK Government; and the establishment of a bi-partisan Committee to lead the negotiations with the UK Government. The letter also communicated the intention of the AUF administration to begin discussions with the United Kingdom Government before July 2019. While the timeline was not met it appears that the AUF administration did deliver on its assurances as communicated to Lord Ahmad.
Correspondence from Lord Ahmad to the Leader of the Opposition, Ms. Palmavon Webster, dated 18th December, 2018 makes it clear that some concern had been expressed to him about the likelihood of the further advancement of the Constitutional Provisions that would remain after the incorporation of those initially identified for inclusion in our Constitution. Lord Ahmad advised Ms. Webster that in discussions with Chief Minister Banks he had been assured of his intention of bringing forward the second stage of proposals, based on the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Committee’s 2017 Report, as soon as was practicable. Mr. Bank’s letter of 29th January, 2019 to Lord Ahmad confirmed the intention previously expressed in discussions with Lord Ahmad.
In light of the content of the letters referenced above, which were published in The Anguillian, it should have been no surprise that the UK Team had been invited to Anguilla to begin negotiations. Yet some persons sought to convey the impression that matters leading up to and including the visit of the UK Team were shrouded in secrecy. Honest and mature communication is necessary if we are truly serious about assuming greater autonomy. Will this be achieved while political ambitions abound?
Our greatest hope for success appears to lie in a ‘ruling’ administration identifying and pursuing, the path determined to be most beneficial to Anguilla after rational and objective consideration – and while communicating with the electorate and allowing opportunity for feedback. Awaiting consensus in Anguilla before taking action is very likely to result in retention of the status quo. This is the conundrum that we are likely to face in relation to resolving outstanding differences between the various factions of the Anguilla Team.
By all accounts – based on engagements during the first phase of negotiations – after more than two decades there is a real opportunity for meaningful Constitutional advancement to be realised. This is an opportunity that must not be trivialised or squandered for political gain.
