The Constitution and Electoral Reform Commission has completed its work. Its report is in the hands of Governor Andrew George. I wish to commend its members highly for sticking to their tasks despite the odds. Regrettably public support was lukewarm. The Commissioners were not deterred by the small turnout at several of their village meetings. Instead, they proceeded as though they had told themselves that ‘wherever two or three are gathered there we will be in the midst.’ It was a courageous group which took the process to a conclusion.

I also commend the Commission for an extremely transparent exercise. It kept the public informed every step of the way by means of frequent publication of the many draft proposals in hard copy and via the internet. Also, it established a website to provide people with a convenient means of airing their views and of making recommendations accordingly. If the transparency which the Commission exhibited in the reform exercise is replicated by Government’s handling of the recommendations, it would be a sign that we are growing politically. And if the new Constitution results in more responsible, transparent and accountable government, the Commission’s work would not have been in vain.

I am in agreement with several of its recommendations. But I have two major concerns. One is the proposal that the House of Assembly should comprise between 13 elected and 15 elected members. When we add the two ex officio members and the Speaker, the House would comprise between 16 and 18 members. It would comprise 16 members if the total number of ministerial posts is 6 and 18 if the number is 7. The Commission supports 6 ministers (a 50% increase). The increase is justifiable but for heaven’s sake never 7 ministers.

It is a pity that the Commission which supports a 16-member House hinted the likelihood of 18 members. It should never have mentioned that because I feel fairly certain that at the end of the revision process we will end up with 7 ministers and a House of 18 or more. My knowledge of the practice of politics in Anguilla tells me so. Furthermore, there are some members of the ruling AUF who are advocating a 21-member House.

In view of the fact that an 18-member House is likely to have the support of the majority in our present House, I put forward the position that the Commission’s recommendation and rationale for a substantial increase in membership are fundamentally flawed. The existing 12-member House is functioning relatively well and when we compare the proposed increases with the size of legislatures in some of other the islands in the region it becomes clear that we are overdoing it.

Let us look briefly at St Vincent and the Grenadines with a population of 121, 000 people which is 100 times more than Anguilla’s. Its House of Assembly consists of 22 members plus a Speaker. Tell me: What is the rationale for making the membership of our Assembly almost as big as that of St Vincent and the Grenadines?

Let us move to the British Virgin Islands (BVI) which comprises some 45 islands, 16 of which are inhabited. It has a population of around 27,000. Its legislature consists of 14 members (5 of whom are ministers) plus the Speaker. Tell me: Where are we going with an 18-member House? Lastly, the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) with a population of 32,000. Its legislature comprises 18 members (6 of whom are ministers) plus the Speaker. Tell me: Where are we going with an 18-member House? Tell me again: Where is Anguilla, which has less than half the population of either BVI or TCI, going with an 18-member House?

The Commission’s rationale for a 16 to 18-member House is that: “There is a serious need to ensure that there are sufficient persons in the Assembly who are not in Government who will be in a position to propose resolutions and motions, to ask questions, and to debate the policies and actions of Government in order to protect the public interest.” That sounds very good but that is not the practice in the English-speaking Caribbean where backbenchers, where they exist, are only seat-warmers. They sit in the back to shout “Aye” when the Speaker asks, “Those in favour?” They ask Government nuttin. All non-government motions and all questions come from the opposition benches.

When I raised the increased-numbers issue with the Commissioners at a meeting, at East End, other reasons advanced was that they would allow for backbenchers on the government side to act as checks on government. And that increased numbers would enhance democratic practice. The truth is that nowhere in the English-speaking Caribbean do backbenchers act as checks on the Executive. As a matter of fact there are hardly any backbenchers. What governments do is either make all backbenchers ministers or create semi-ministerial positions for them.

Anguilla will be no exception. In fact, governments here have a history of not only making jobs for all of its party members who win seats but also for all those members who contested elections and lost. The scenario in Anguilla is like this: Suppose our new Constitution provides for a House of 15 elected members, inclusive of 6 ministers. And suppose the PPP contested 12 seats but won 10. Well, the PPP would appoint six ministers, create positions for the four backbenchers and create positions for its two members who did not win their seats. This practice makes a mockery of the notion that backbenchers check the Executive.

More generally, neither do Caribbean legislatures check the Executive. It is always the Executive in control. Legislators are so dependent on the Executive for their survival that they are bound to support it for fear of their political lives being terminated prematurely or permanently. The effect is that Caribbean legislatures are mere servants or rubber stamps of the Executive. Nothing more. And they will remain that way as long we maintain the Westminster-style of Government. So when our Reform Commission says that it has recommended an increase in membership of the House so that the legislature (including backbenchers) could check on the Executive, and as a means of democratising our political processes, it is disregarding totally the history and practice of Caribbean politics. An increase in the number of legislators only entrenches the dictatorship of the Executive.

Having dispelled the myth of the usefulness of backbenchers in Caribbean political practice, I come to my second major concern with the Commission’s report. It is the lack of effective checks on the Executive. Because neither the backbenchers nor the Legislature can control it, I have long advocated that our Constitution should provide the mechanisms which allow the people themselves to do the controlling. In other words, if the checks from inside the legislature do not work then the checks got to come from the outside. They got to come from the people.
In this regard, I am again suggesting that our Constitution makes provision for the recall of any elected member of the House who is not, in the opinion of his or her constituents, carrying out their mandate. The effect will be that constituents would be able to remove a member from the House before the end of his or her 5-year term. I suggested formulas in my previous writings and will not repeat them here.
Also, I am again proposing that our Constitution makes provision for the use of referendums the results of some of which could be binding. Where matters of wide national interest are at stake, our Government should first seek people’s support by way of referendum, thus a means of checking the Executive. Similarly, the people themselves, on their own initiative, should be allowed to demand referendums on matters they consider as being extremely important to their general well-being. Referendums reflect the will of the people and give much substance to the dictum of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Any mechanism which makes “democracy” more democratic is worth pursuing.

Frankly speaking, there is no need to rush through the Constitutional and Electoral Reform exercise because without the necessary checks and balances, our Executive will continue being a ‘plot bull’, stubborn like hell and out of control. Some of its members feel that they are a law unto themselves. I will never forget Albert Hughes (Belto) telling the House (1996): “The Executive Council is the highest court of the law in every country.” We need to slow down the reform process and get it right because opportunities for making amendments come once a blue moon.

In terms of getting it right, the suggestion of a House of Assembly of between 16 and 18 members for 2 x 16 Anguilla is regrettable. It should be scrapped. It has very little to do with checking the power of the Executive, and democratising the political process. Instead, it has more to do with increasing the cost of government. An 18-member Assembly is too much government. The 50% increase (from 12 to 18) in membership represents a 50% increase in the cost of government and will place additional financial burdens on our people.

Taking into account the adequacy, and relatively well functioning, of the present 12-member House, but bearing in mind the need to increase the number of ministers from 4 to 6, it is my view that a House of 13 members is capable of managing efficiently our affairs for the foreseeable future. A 13-member House has the support of many Anguillians some of whom think it should comprise: 7 members elected by the constituencies (following a redrawing of the electoral boundaries), 4 elected at large, the Attorney General and the Speaker. Allister Richardson, a former Permanent Secretary, is a strong advocate of 13 members. And the other day I met a Permanent Secretary who was boiling mad about the possibility of an 18-member House. People are thinking.

We need to let good sense prevail. An 18-member House is too much government for our sparsely populated island of 35 square miles. Eighteen members mean one member for every two square miles. It also means one member for every 666 persons. That is too much government. Too much government is too much for a little island like ours with a mono-sector economy (the tourism industry) which is heavily dependent on whether winters in the USA are mild or severe and which, because of its fickleness, could vanish in the twinkling of an eye.

I go further and stress that an Executive (or Cabinet) inclusive of 7 ministers, for a population of 12,000, is definitely unwarranted. Too many ministers. Too much government. But in spite of that I could imagine hearing one or two members of the House arguing for 7 instead of 6 ministers saying, for example: “What de hell! Let’s have one minister for each day of the week!”

Most definitely, seven ministers are too much government. And too much government is much too much for a people who are still learning to work with ‘democratic’ institutions and who are yet to hold their leaders accountable and responsible. Too much government is much too much for an island where political leaders hate public dissent, abhor a free press and refuse to consult people on important national issues. Too much government is much too much for an island where political leaders are vindictive of those who criticise them and dislike those who stand up in defence of their rights enshrined in the Constitution. Too much government is more government than democracy. The reverse is the ideal.

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News