Two rallying cries could be heard in the months leading up to the June 2022 General Election. The Anguilla United Front’s (AUF’s) refrain was ‘Ready on Day 1’ while the Anguilla Progressive Movement (APM) declared ‘Change Can’t Wait.’ The APM prevailed and swept into office with a 7 to 4 majority, in the eleven seat House of Assembly. Clearly the electorate believed that change could not wait and, even if they did not consider the APM to be ready on Day 1, it appeared that they were prepared to allow them the time to make themselves ready.
By its second anniversary in office the APM was forced to face some hard facts. In fact, well before its second anniversary, key supporters who claimed to have been instrumental in APM’s success at the polls had publicly criticised the APM’s performance since taking office, and in some instances had publicly advised that they were relinquishing all ties with the APM. The dissent within the APM included one party member who had sought elected office in the 2020 General Election, and two elected members who declined publicly to toe the party line in respect of the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. In recent weeks, the public was again treated to further cracks in the APM’s ability to successfully govern, when two ministers resigned within a week of each other. The Honourable Premier Dr. Ellis Lorenzo Webster must, however, be given credit for the quick repair work effected in respect of the most recent cracks. The repair work was so effective that it saw the reversal of one of the ministerial resignations, thereby returning the elected government to a majority position after its very brief stint as a minority elected government.
While the more astute political pundits among us might have foreseen and anticipated the cracks which have appeared, many of us have been shocked by the speed at which they appeared and where they have been manifested. For many, this has been taken as proof that the APM certainly was not ready on Day 1, and would have benefitted from the inclusion of persons who had prior experience in governance by virtue of having previously served in elected office. The APM’s entire slate of candidates for the 2020 General Election had never been previously elected to office. While the AUF sought to convince the electorate that successful governance required a good mix of experience and youthful exuberance, a majority of the electorate obviously thought otherwise.
What could and should the APM have done, considering their lack of exposure in elected office and what many now consider to be their unreadiness from Day 1? One obvious misstep, being highlighted by many persons, is the almost immediate transfer of certain permanent secretaries upon the APM taking office. While the transfer of permanent secretaries is the purview of the Governor/Deputy Governor, it is widely believed that the transfers were effected at the behest of the APM government following the unfortunate publication of a less than complimentary private conversation about members of the APM between a permanent secretary and friends. The transfers saw Dr. Aidan Harrigan and Mr. Larry Franklin, two key public officers, transferred from the posts of PS Finance and PS Economic Development respectively, to posts in which many consider their knowledge and expertise to be wasted. The first-time ministers of the APM Government have been denied the institutional knowledge and experience of these two senior public officers. This experience and knowledge might have assisted in guiding the implementation of the GST and thereby forestall the need for organised protest against its implementation.
It appears that the APM honeymoon period also came to a swift end because elected APM members did not see the need to be inclusive, and sidelined many persons willing to offer guidance – including key supporters. The public exchanges with members of the public via social media have also not served to endear them to the electorate. Many persons consider these exchanges to be a sign of immaturity on the part of the elected officials.
Whatever we consider to be the cause of the recent cracks in the APM government, they should serve as lessons to the APM and the electorate. The members of the APM Government should seriously take to heart the old adage ‘no man is an island’, and humble themselves and seek help when needed from available sources, even across party lines. The electorate, on the other hand, must consider the power of their vote and always seek to utilise it from a considered, rather than emotive position. Instability in government is likely to reflect itself in poor investments and economic decline. This is a situation we can least afford at a time when we are facing rising costs without corresponding salary increases.
While the APM might not have been ready on Day 1, the expectation is that since taking office they would have worked to ready themselves. Hopefully, that will now manifest itself as, in the words of the old adage – ‘Better late than never.’
