“Brother Pet! Ayer hear hell!” I asked, “Whar happen?” He replied: “The Government has scuttled the recommendations of Constitution and Electoral Reform Commission and was doing its own changes secretly in cahoots with the British Government.” Later I got the real story which was a major talking point over the past two weeks or so.

Retired Justice Don Mitchell, C.B.E, Q.C, discovered, and made public, that our Government and the British Government had agreed to amend the Anguilla Constitution without having consulted our people. It was to be done by the Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 2007 so as to give effect to certain police reforms which our Government had planned to implement. To this end, an Order in Council was made ready for submission to the Privy Council on 7th February 2007.

Truthfully speaking, the revelation shocked most people. They found it difficult to believe that our Ministers of Government would have taken such action in secret. Unfortunately they did. But fortunately, Don was on the web trolling through Hansard when he came across the planned Order in Council. And many say, “God bless him” because we may not have known a thing about the agreement until after the fact. On the other hand, it is not surprising that some Government officials leveled much criticism at him for bringing the matter from darkness to light. The strength of a nation depends on the courage of a few.

Don was sufficiently candid to admit that when he made the discovery he was “mad as hell” and “felt physically ill.” I could empathise with him especially in light of the fact that Government has before it, since August 2006, the report of the Constitution and Electoral Reform Commission and had done not a single thing to advance the process. The Reform exercise had significant public input. Its recommendations are reflective of the feelings of the Anguillian public but Government seemed to have shelved it and was in the process of doing its own thing.

It was mostly because of that backdrop, and while everyone awaited some movement on the recommendations of the Reform Commission, that Anguillians were shocked on learning that their Government, in cahoots with the British Government, had planned to make certain amendments to their Constitution without their input or knowledge. (A statesman knows that the people must control government. A politician believes that government should control people.)

After much public outcry over the matter, Government issued a Press Release (23rd January) stating that since the amendments to the Constitution “were consequential [to the Police Bills before the House of Assembly], the Government . . . felt that because of the urgency of the modernization process they should be progressed ahead of the wider Constitutional Reform exercise.” The Release continued, “The Government of Anguilla in the normal way therefore requested the Secretary of State to make these consequential amendments by Order in Council to give effect to the Police Reforms.”

Government’s explanation is weak especially in view of the fact that the Reform Commission’s recommendations for amending the Constitution contained provisions with respect to police reform. Further, since Government was so concerned with expediting matters with respect to the police, all the more reason why it should have expedited action on the Commission’s recommendations.

Despite Government’s explanation, it is still difficult to understand why it seemingly shelved the Commission’s recommendations but found it expedient to hurry through its own recommendations to London. Such action suggests that it has very little interest, if any, in comprehensive constitutional reform and that we should expect very little in that regard. Since there has been absolutely no movement on the Commission’s recommendations, to date, it is unlikely that any constitutional changes will come about in time for elections 2010.

Government’s attempt at amending our Constitution through the backdoor is at odds with our democracy. It highlights several weaknesses. Our political leaders are yet to understand that a Constitution is sacred. They are yet to appreciate that it is a contract between a people and its Government and, therefore, any attempt to amend it without consulting the people is ‘illegal’. Had the amendment gone through, Government would have been found guilty, in the court of public opinion, of breach of contract. Any Constitution which is amended without the express consent of the people lacks legitimacy because a Constitution must be reflective of the will of the people for whom it was made. It is the will of the people that prevails. Not the will of a handful of political leaders. No man is good enough to govern another man without the other’s consent (Abraham Lincoln).

I say further that Government’s attempt at amending our Constitution in secret reminds us that we are still a long way off from the realisation of accountable, open and transparent governance. Secrecy in governance often times suggests the existence of some kind of underhand business. It is such secrecy –backdoor tactics – that gives people the impression that Government has a hidden agenda. And yer can’t blame them for so thinking.
Indeed, we need open governance because excessive secrecy prevents our people from holding Government accountable for its policies and actions. It prevents people from engaging in informed debates on matters which affect their lives. Our people cannot debate certain matters because they do not know about them, and that is most regrettable. A representative democracy only works when the actions of . . . institutions are transparent. People need to know what decisions government officials have made and why, and they need to understand the consequences of those decisions. Very true. We need transparent governance. Its absence is a major flaw in our democracy.

The public debate on the proposed Order in Council, over our private radio stations, was exceedingly healthy. Indeed, freedom rings whenever opinions clash (Adlai Stevenson). The Government’s Release (23rd January) referred to the debate as a “media tirade which . . . unwittingly incensed many members of the public.” Of course there was reason for the public to be incensed. And, frankly speaking, I found the “mediaa tirade” most enlightening. It was educational. It was an indication that we still enjoy freedom of speech, but at the expense of making bitter political enemies.

The “media tirade,” and widespread public disgust, produced good fruit because a Government Press Release, on 26th January, informed us that Government had advised the Secretary of State that it would “not be seeking an Order in Council to facilitate the proposed amendments to the Constitution” to provide for “the enactment of the Police Service Bills in question.” So the proposed Order in Council is dead. Government, no doubt, appreciated the people’s arguments against its unilateral action. And it may have reasoned that, we can maintain a free society only if we recognize that in a free society no one can win all the time. No one can have his own way all the time, and no one is right all the time (Richard Nixon).

By withdrawing the Order in Council, Government has conceded that it is not right all the time and I applaud its Ministers for their compliance with the better judgment of their people. They recognised that they had made a serious mistake and made amends forthwith. It is not often that our Ministers do that, so it is indeed heartening that they are beginning to listen to their people. The Honourable Belto Hughes agrees that they are listening but, in his view, not quickly enough. To quote him (2007): “They are listening, but they are slow in their listening.”

An important input into Government’s decision to scrap the Order in Council was made by Anguilla’s own Dame Bernice Lake, Q.C., an eminent Caribbean jurist, on whom Government has showered much praise for her advice. According to its Press Release (26th January), Dame Bernice had “advised that, in terms of safeguarding the wider issue of the sanctity of the Constitution, we should make every effort to achieve our objectives by finding ways to do so administratively and within the parameters of the Constitution.”

That brings me to another point: There is a lot of expertise in the wider Anguillian community but our governments have a tradition of refusing to use it where the people with the expertise do not wear the ruling party’s t-shirt. For reasons of party politics, Anguilla’s vast reservoir of expertise, in all fields, remains untapped to the detriment of the island’s progress. Government is not benefiting from the best advice available locally. It is not benefiting from alternative opinions, policies and strategies and therefore not making the best decisions. Difference of opinion leads to enquiry and enquiry to truth . . . (Thomas Jefferson).

I say further that it is regrettable that our political leaders do not take kindly to opposing views. As far as they are concerned there must be only one view, but my life’s experiences have caused me to agree with Dudley Malone who said: I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. In any decision-making process, the best decisions are always the result of a cross-fertilisation of conflicting ideas. Also, there can be no democracy where there is no free exchange of ideas. As long as differences . . . exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation and for the recognition of differences (Eugene MacCarthy).

As I reflect on the public outcry against the proposed Order in Council, I get the impression that when it comes to political awareness our people are miles ahead of most of our political leaders. For example, when Belto Hughes could say (1996) that “the Executive Council is the highest court of the law in every country,” that speaks volumes. In contrast, though, Victor Banks is boss at the mathematics of politics. Listen to him (1993): “In politics one and one does not always make two.”

As I reflect on the public outcry against the proposed Order in Council, it seems to have sent a very strong message to Government. The message is that the Anguillian people have moved beyond the Little Miss Muffet stage of their political development, and now have a better understanding of their rights and obligations. It is in view of that understanding that the message cautions Government that it should never again attempt to amend the Constitution without people’s input because they will not sit idly by on their tuffet and do nothing.

By the way, as I listened to Cool FM’s broadcast of the meeting which the Concerned Citizens of West End held in their district, on Monday night 29th January, a little fear came over me. Something told me that if the people in attendance could have gotten their hands on a piece of rope they would have hanged Belto on the spot and without a prayer even though Brother Wilmoth was present. Belto was severely mauled. I am hoping that now that we have passed the Little Miss Muffet stage of our political development, consultation will replace confrontation in the advancement of social and political harmony.

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

World News