On the evening of Thursday 29th July 2021, our democracy was hijacked. There is no other way to describe the events which unfolded in the Anguilla House of Assembly after the debate on the GST Bill was concluded. To have the vote of the majority of members, duly elected by the people of Anguilla to represent their interests, nullified by the vote of the unelected members of the House, who serve in their capacities by virtue of their positions in Government, was a travesty and something every Anguillian should be concerned about, regardless of whether or not they support the implementation of GST — or their political affiliation. That vote has shaken the foundations of everything that we know democracy to be.
The word democracy has its origins in the Greek word “demos” which means people and “kratos” which means power. It is a system of Government in which power is vested in the people — and is exercised by them either directly or through freely elected representatives. Anguilla has always enjoyed a democratic system of Government. The fact that in 2021 the fundamental principles that underpin democracy could be so casually cast aside is appalling and offensive to the Anguillian people. It is heartening that so many Anguillians individually, and as part of various organisations, have spoken out against this assault on our democracy. Several letters have been written to the Governor — who has already signed the Bill into law — voicing objection to the House proceedings and requesting her intervention. However, the appeals of the people have been to no avail.
One can fairly conclude, from the Governor’s responses, that the good governance watchdog (ie. the United Kingdom Government) is complicit in undermining the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Anguilla. How is it that, in relation to the passage of this Bill, there is no concern about the fact that what transpired in the House of Assembly is contrary to the principles of good governance — and erodes the essence of democracy? Rather, there are references to the fact that the vote was legal — and the principle of collective responsibility which, the Governor claims, obligates all members of Executive Council to support the Bill in the House of Assembly. I consider these justifications to be empty platitudes.
I take issue with the principle of collective responsibility on two fronts. Firstly, how is it that it was able to bind the Attorney General and the Deputy Governor to vote in a particular way, and not the two Ministers of Government who voted against the Bill? Secondly, the principle, as explained by the Governor, seems to contravene the doctrine of separation of powers between the various arms of Government. The doctrine frowns on the Executive being able to bind Parliament and, in fact, to prevent this from happening the Constitution of Anguilla establishes a formula to limit the number of Ministers to ensure that they make up less than half of the elected members of the House of Assembly. In other words, the Constitution builds in safeguards to ensure that the Executive (in this case Ministers) do not control the House. Who could have imagined that the persons to guard against would be the ex-officio members whose vote has never before been utilised to overturn the vote of the majority of elected members? While on the letter of the Constitution their vote was legal, there is no doubt that it was unfair, unjustified and contrary to sound democratic principles. No excuse the Governor conjures up can change that.
Additionally, the claim that the Governor had no choice but to sign the Bill would seem laughable to many Anguillians. How many of us can remember the times when the Appropriation Acts (ie the budgets) were passed in the House of Assembly and waited for months on the Governor’s assent? In this case, based on the time of passage in the House, and the date of assent, it is clear that the GST Bill was signed in less than twenty four hours despite the fact that the principles of good governance were not adhered to. It is clear to me that those principles are applied selectively — and can be ignored when they serve the interests of the United Kingdom Government. To whom then do the people complain?
What recourse do the people have when democracy is hijacked? I would encourage us to advocate for, and pay attention to, the completion of the Constitutional reform exercise. Be involved in the process. By the way, I would have mentioned in my last editorial that there is still another avenue available to us — that is, to appeal to the Secretary of State to use the power of disallowance which would nullify the Governor’s assent to the GST Act. How far are we willing to go? I daresay that when democracy is hijacked, only we the people can restore it.
