Everywhere you turn in Anguilla these days there seems to be some talk about Anguilla pursuing political independence from Great Britain. The most recent trigger to this up tick in talk about independence seems to be the revelation that Chief Minister Hughes’ government has recently formed another Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee, less than six months after the expiration of the term of the previous committee chaired by Rev. C. Niles. The area of most concern seems to be that the terms of reference for this new committee includes a provision to produce an independence constitution forAnguilla. This provision has caused the opposition party to refuse an invitation to participate in the exercise, citing the need for a referendum before considering an independence constitution. As a concerned citizen of Anguilla, I feel compelled to voice my opinion on the matter of independence in general, and the provision given to this latest committee to produce an independence constitution for Anguilla.
One of the questions that quickly come to my mind is whether all this talk is really a focused, analytical conversation about the pros and cons of political independence for Anguilla, or is the talk about a few very passionate people’s desire for it? If the conversation is indeed about true political independence for Anguilla, then my next question is, should it be? Should this 35 square mile island with a population of only 13,000 people (approximately 9,000 tax-payers) be really talking about political independence at this stage of its development, or should the national conversation be about more foundational issues such as formulating a national vision for Anguilla that if purposefully followed could result in making political independence for Anguilla a viable option? Should we be using our limited resources to fund another Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee to develop an independence constitution without first having a referendum for all the people of Anguilla to decide whether or not we want political independence? We all know that before Anguilla can achieve political independence it must first be as a result of the clearly expressed will of the people of Anguilla. So my next question is, what would happen to this independence constitution if, when we eventually have a referendum on the independence issue, the referendum fails? Wouldn’t we then have to go back and spend more of our limited resources to develop another constitution that reflect the wishes of the people?
Having pondered these questions, it is my view that any conversation about pursuing political independence for Anguilla at this time is premature and a clear case of putting the proverbial cart before the horse. I believe that instead of talking about political independence we should be focusing on first formulating a national vision for Anguilla and a realistic plan and implementation strategies to achieve it The people most passionate about political independence for Anguilla have been vocal about it for over twenty years now. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, they are yet to publish or even publicly articulate a national vision for Anguilla, a plan to achieve it or a strategy for implementing it. This reality prompts me to ask even more questions such as, why not? Why after all this time we still haven’t heard where, under our own flag and with the full internal and external power to chart our own course, we would be heading? The lack of answers to this question suggests several reasons. One reason might be that the motivation for political independence is more about a passion to be politically independent than a realistic understanding of and appreciation for the responsibilities inherent in nationhood. Another possibility might be that the people most passionate for political independence are not prepared to formulate a national vision, develop a realistic plan and a strategy to achieve it or that they might not even value the need for such. A wiser person than me once said that failing to plan is planning to fail. Planning does not guarantee success but failing to plan, guarantees failure. Independence is not one of those things that you get to “do over.” It is not something that affects one group of Anguillians and not another. It is not something that will only affect the current generations of Anguillians but future ones as well. Something as important and national as political independence demands more than just desire. It demands more than just passion. It demands and requires a national vision, national leadership and the guidance of the divine.
I expect leaders to lead and I’m a firm believer that in order for them to lead they must create clear paths for people to follow. Producing an independence constitution and then possibly asking me to comment on or help improve it before you first ask me if I want it, is not my idea of leadership. That sounds closer to my idea of a dictatorship. That sounds closer to my idea of an attempt to confuse and/or over complicate the democratic process. That sounds closer to my idea of trying to achieve a political agenda at all cost. That sounds closer to my idea of what people might do when they either don’t fully understand the principles of democracy or when they don’t fully embrace them. Tell me where you want to go and let me decide if I want to go with you. Tell me why you think I should go there and let me show if I agree with you or not. Tell me how you plan on getting there and let me determine if it makes sense to me. Tell me what all you believe is required to get there and let me figure out if I want to or can afford to pay that price. In essence, demonstrate your leadership and then let me decide if I believe in it enough to follow it. Articulate a vision and allow me to be inspired enough to work with you and to pray with you and for you to realize it.
To be fair, I believe the proponents of political independence do give an answer to the question of why they think Anguilla should pursue political independence. They generally list the following:
1. Britain does not give Anguilla anything.
2. The Governor has the power to overrule our elected government.
3. Our government has not turned the economy around because the Governor and/or the British are sabotaging our efforts.
4. The British now want to incorporate Anguilla into the European Union.
5. The provision within the 1980 Anguilla Act which provides for Anguilla’s independence, following a clear expression for it by the people ofAnguilla, is now being taken off of the table.
These reasons are usually mixed in with some of their personal, individualistic desire for and/or conviction thatAnguillashould want to be or need to be independent. These reasons, some more than others, are subject to verification but, accepting them at face value, they are understandable and reasonable for why one might want to consider political independence – but they do nothing to answer what, in my mind, are the more critical questions of how? what? or when?
I am of the view that Anguilla’s political independence fromGreat Britainis inevitable but that it is not a viable option for us at this time. It is not a viable option for us at this time, in part, because we have not yet done what is necessary to make it a viable option and, even worse, we are still not yet doing what is required in order to make it a viable option. Desire is not enough. If it was, everybody would win gold medals at the Olympics and we all would be at our ideal weight, size or shape. We have to focus and be consistent with doing the hard work in order to position Anguilla so that political independence can be the next logical step in our development. I would suggest that, in lieu of simply focusing on wanting to be politically independent from Great Britain, we sit down and develop a set of S.M.A.R.T goals that once accomplished would make political independence a viable option for Anguilla. The acronym S.M.A.R.T is for specific, measurable, action oriented, resourced and time constrained. So what should these goals include? Well, in my view, this should have been the type of conversations the people who are so vocal about independence should have had long before we got to where we are today – talking about independence and an independence constitution. But, be that as it may, let me share my two cents on what I believe should be considered.
One of the first goals I believe we need to achieve is consensus on who we are as a people, and how that would be used to create and guide what our nation can become. That means identifying, understanding and agreeing on our values and then demonstrating our values in words and in deeds. Our values should permeate our laws, our policies, our procedures and our processes. That include the very processes that we would eventually follow if, or when, we the people of Anguilla decide to become an independent nation. I do not believe we need to be politically independent to start doing this. Actually, I believe we must do this as a people, whether or not we become politically independent. I believe we should be doing this right now. If we were, it would have been evidence of our political maturity and of our people’s preparedness for political independence.
The second goal I believe we need to build consensus on, is our top 3 to 5 opportunities we have, or can create and/or pursue, in order to build a sustainable economy. In order to do this we must identify and fully understand the potential of our resources. In my view, we have three natural resources namely, our people, our land and our sea. The socio-economic potential wrapped up in our people, our land and our sea can best be accessed through the development of our people. We need to not just agree on this but we also need to agree on some basic approaches of how this might be optimized.
A third goal I believe we need to have is the development of both economic and social performance milestones. I am referring here to standard indicators such as GDP per capita, minimum sustainable population, a sustainable employment level and a tolerable poverty rate, if any. These would serve as targets and as indicators that political independence is viable.
A fourth goal I believe we need to have consensus on, is a culture of democracy. One of the things that impressed me the most when I read and/or learn about the Anguilla Revolution is how democratic our revolutionary leaders were, at least, until it was clear that separation from St. Kitts,Nevis was secured. I believe that culture of always involving the people, and relying on the people, for the final decision was a level of democracy that, in my mind, far exceeded what the British were accustomed to or even understood. Sadly, over the years, we as a people seem to have lost some of that and recent events have caused me to become even more concerned.
The areas of citizenship and citizen participation are areas where I believe we need to do a lot of work. “The Role of Citizens in our Political System” was a topic we addressed on The Mayor Show earlier this year but one talk show and one programme is not enough. I believe our education system should make basic Civics a part of our standard high school education. I’m told that a class in Civics is offered at the sixth form level. I would recommend that a Civics class be offered at the fourth or fifth forms instead, because all students do not go to sixth form. I would also recommend that the Anguilla Community College offer a similar class for the general population. We seem to limit democracy and citizenship to elections every five years. We seem to ignore that citizenship is at the core of a democracy. It is the office of citizenship that elects the officers of government and the officers of the opposition, and therefore if we in the office of citizens fail in our responsibilities then our entire democratic political system will fail. Saying I loveAnguillabut I’m not paying my property taxes is not consistent with good citizenship. Having some information about a crime but not telling law enforcement is not consistent with good citizenship. Saying I did not vote for a particular elected representative so I am not going to listen to a word he got to say is not consistent with good citizenship. Saying he or she did not vote for our political party so he or she cannot be on a board does not encourage good citizenship and limits citizen participation. Attempting to stifle civil servants from speaking their mind on issues of national interest discourages good citizenship and limits citizen participation. Threatening to sue and/or encouraging citizens not to read certain newspapers, or listen to certain programmes, will not develop good citizenship and will not increase citizen participation. The development of a culture firmly against these attitudes, and the setting up of institutions to guard against the slightest possibility of these events occurring, should be a top priority as we have the national discussions.
None of us is smarter than all of us and therefore I’m confident that if we have these national conversations, not prematurely about political independence, in part, because we have some legitimate issues with the British regarding the internal affairs of Anguilla, but about how we can position our beloved country for the future, we would come up with a much better list of goals than I have mentioned above and a more united Anguilla that eventually can be an independent nation, if that is what we as a people decide.
Fellow Anguillians, there is my “two cents” on all this talk about political independence in Anguilla. I encourage all of you to put in your “two cents” as well so that at the end of the day, the future generations would have a clear basis from which to judge us all.
