It was on 6th February 1969 that Anguilla declared itself an Independent Republic. The declaration followed the holding of a plebiscite in which 1739 persons voted in favour and 4 voted against. The people were given two choices: Independent Republic or rule by St Kitts under Robert Bradshaw. But they never wanted independence.

The fact of the matter is that they would have chosen any option other than rule by St Kitts under Bradshaw. For example, if they had to choose between going to hell and rule by St Kitts under Bradshaw, they would have chosen going to hell. Collins O. Hodge underscored that viewpoint when he remarked (1969) that, “Bradshaw said that Anguilla is adrift and that the rocks will pick us up. But I say that any shark can eat us with the exception of Bradshaw.”

Back then, one of the strongest advocates of political independence for Anguilla was the fire-spitting radical leader, and well-loved, Edwin Wallace Rey. Listen to him (1968): “It was nonsense to say we can’t live apart from Britain till we have tried! Every young man has to break away from his parents to get married!” But Kenneth Hazell (1968) disagreed: “We would never be so crazy to declare independence from anyone. We want to manage our own affairs but we are not silly enough to say that we don’t want help.” Rey did not take too kindly to Hazell’s position. He felt that “some people were bribing the members of Council not to think of independence” (1968).

Actually, the word ‘independence’ is yet to make its entry into the Anguilla Political Dictionary. It ain’t there. And, for heaven’s sake, leave independence out of your political campaign unless you are speaking against it. It’s a ‘bad-word’. I remember very well how claims that Ronald Webster had planned to take Anguilla into independence contributed to his party’s defeat at the polls, by the ANA, in the 1984 elections. During the campaign the ANA advanced the view that if Webster’s APP had won, independence was the next step. Bernice Lake (1984) told a public meeting: “Mr Webster has his compass set on independence!” The people believed her. They also believed Belto Hughes (1984): “This man really want independence because he is the Mr Jesus of Anguilla. He went up to Antigua to take note of their independence [celebrations]. It was so sweet to him that he decided . . . [to] take eleven disciples with him to the St. Kitts [independence celebrations]. He faltered one.”

The ANA certainly made much political capital out of the people’s disdain for independence. But Webster was not one of its advocates. He is man enough to speak for himself, so here he is (1969): “We had here, for the first time, the celebration of the birthday of Her Majesty the Queen. We did not expect it but we got it and we have enjoyed it.” And at another public meeting: “We have been struggling for years and years and did not expect to meet up with such luck as to see the British sending us such expensive men as are here today to assist us.” Then during the 1981 elections campaign he complained that he was “constantly pressured by Jeremiah Gumbs and Hubert Hughes to increase Anguilla’s capacity to obtain aid by abandoning the British and opting for independence.” Webster never bent under that pressure.

As we enter the twenty-first century, an anti-independence stance remains a definite vote-getter and that speaks volumes: the Anguillian people are in no haste for independence. Any political party which advocates it is committing suicide. There is no groundswell support for independence and what little support there was seemed to have vanished with the sad passing of the Anguilla Independence Movement (AIM) led by Haydn Hughes and others. However, AIM certainly contributed to the political education of Anguillian people. Its sad passing brought an end to the educational process, and now independence is hardly ever mentioned in political or other circles. Anguillians feel that until they are ready for it, they are compelled to shelter under Britain’s petticoat. In my view we would remain under her petticoat forever unless, and until, we put in place the foundation stones of political independence.

What are some of the foundation stones? One is the development of a sustainable economy with the capacity to generate wealth for the benefit of all. Actually, when a United Nations Mission visited Anguilla, in 1984, to ascertain our people’s views on independence, two of our main political parties (the ruling ANA and the ADP) took the position that the state of the economy was a roadblock. The ANA’s memorandum to the Mission, pointed out that “the rock-bed of a people’s ability to assume . . . [independence was] its economic capacity to do so.” It went on: “We have used our telescopic binoculars and we do not see . . . [independence] on the horizon as yet...”

The UN Mission, in addition to its meetings with government and opposition, held discussions with a broad cross-section of Anguillians and concluded that independence was not a major concern and therefore not on their political agenda. To quote its findings: “There was a genuine apprehension among the people of the territory that independence without a substantial measure of economic viability might” put them in a worse situation.

The state of our economy as a roadblock to independence surfaced in the 1994 elections. Rev John A. Gumbs stressed: “It would be lacking in responsibility for any party in Anguilla today to seek political independence when we do not have economic independence.” And Kenneth Harrigan suggested that the island should hold on to Britain for as long as possible because “England will pour money in here in a spout.” Indeed, Anguillian people have long maintained that the state of the island’s economy is such that independence was not a matter for the front burner.

Anguilla is presently enjoying unprecedented economic growth but that has not led to demands for independence. Its people appear contented with the UK’s presence which they regard not only as a symbol of political stability, but also as an attraction to foreign investment. They are of the view that the UK’s presence contributes to investor-confidence; that foreign investors feel comfortable knowing that their investments are safe. Also, investors have expressed great confidence in the island’s legal system the highest court of which is the Privy Council in London. In the meantime programmes must be put in place to ensure the building of a sustainable economy, a foundation stone of political independence.

A second foundation stone is well-developed social infrastructures. To quote UN Mission’s report, Anguilla lacks “social infrastructures to shoulder the responsibilities incumbent on an independent state.” Regrettably, the situation has changed very little since 1984. We have made much progress economically but social development has not kept pace with economic growth. It has consistently lagged behind and, thankfully, Government recently pledged to make it the principal focus of its development programmes for 2007 and beyond.

A third foundation stone of independence is a well-developed political system with institutions that ensure political stability and democratic governance. These institutions must operate in ways that protect, respect and advance fundamental freedoms and ensure equal rights and opportunities for all. I have constantly maintained that our political leaders are yet to learn how to operate democratic institutions. We have had some governments with very poor records of operating those institutions. Some of our leaders handle power badly. It is our failure to operate democratic institutions democratically which has contributed to many Anguillians being in no haste to sever ties with the UK. As a matter of fact Ronald Webster welcomes such ties. To quote him (1993): “What Britain is doing is preparing us to become self reliant upon our own resources, rather than relying on Britain and other countries for the crumbs that fall from their tables. Britain is trying to prepare us to be on our own, like a bird that prepares her chicks to be on their own.”

A fourth foundation stone is an enlightened political culture – a participatory political culture. We are still a politically illiterate people. Our political immaturity is very evident. For example, we are yet to begin holding our governments accountable. We do not demand transparency. We are dead afraid of criticising ministers of government for fear of rebuke or of losing favours. In Anguilla our political leaders could get away with murder.

Another negative aspect of our political culture is that we associate political stability with colonialism and instability with independence thus our disinterest in the latter. In this regard, most Anguillians love having a British governor in residence, even if it means in residence and nothing more. Notwithstanding that, there is the perception among the more politically conscious that governors don’t really do anything and that their appointments are a waste of human capital. Such perception of their uselessness, of their impotence, has come about because governors habitually fail to discharge their overall responsibility for good governance – fail to act as checks on the excesses of governments. Of course there have been excesses, but governors have been known to sit back and do nothing.

Incidentally, I had a big laugh last October when Hubert Hughes said on a Talk Your Mind programme that “the only problem” he has “with British governors is that they do not govern.” My reason for laughing was that Hubert was one Chief Minister who never allowed them to govern. Not over his dead body. I recall him boasting at a political meeting at East End (2001) that: “I throw Governor Shave out of this country and he (Shave) said it was the hardest assignment he had in the thirty three years he had in the Foreign Service.” He went on: “Governor Harris had several heart attacks and almost [left Anguilla] in a [body] bag because he had to stand up to me!” It is a fact that Hubert gave them hell.
Pardon my digression. I am still on political culture as a foundation stone of independence. It was in view of Anguilla’s unenlightened political culture, and of the UN Mission’s understanding of its people’s thinking on independence, that the Mission recommended that their “political education” should “be intensified” so that they may freely discuss all of the options available to them.
Indeed, we need to be awakened politically if we are to venture into independence. Yes, we have to be prepared economically, socially and politically, but there must be changes in our way of thinking. And not only that. According to A. G. Singham in The Hero and Crowd in Colonial Polity, “genuine decolonization [also] involves personality changes.” Such changes are paramount. Until they occur – until the psychological scars and chains created by a history of neglect and subcolonisation have been removed – we will never cease sheltering under Britain’s petticoat. We have to get from under the petticoat if we are to stand on our own as a free people, with dignity and our own identity, charting our own destiny. The sooner the foundation stones of independence are in place the better.

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

World News