The long wait for Government to discuss with its people the recommendations of the 2006 Constitution Reform Commission is over. Government and Opposition members of the House of Assembly are meeting jointly with the people in an effort to seek their views. This must be applauded. Both Government and the Opposition members are making the point that the proposed amendments to the Constitution are aimed at democratising it. That too is plausible.

I want to stress that while the Constitution should enhance democracy, the Constitution-making process itself should be democratic. Thus far, the process is democratic from the point of view that our elected representatives are holding a series of public meetings seeking feedback from the people. But the degree to which our House of Assembly could alter the recommendations of the Commission must take into consideration the fact that the recommendations are reflective of the views of the majority of Anguillian people.

I get the impression, having listened to Victor Banks, Minister of Finance and Tourism, at several meetings, that despite the Commission’s recommendation that we should do away with the two nominated members in the House, Government was of the view that they should be retained. Hubert Hughes, of the Opposition, is in agreement.

Actually, the Anguillian people have long been of the view that the two positions should be abolished. They told the Constitution Review Committee so in 1988. The Committee’s report observed that “it would represent a step towards further democratisation, if the nominated members were replaced by two further elected members.” It was towards that end that the Committee, of which the well-respected Rev C. L. Carty was a member, recommended as follows: “We suggest that consideration should be given to amending the Constitution . . . to require a minimum of nine elected members, and no nominated members of the House.”

Regrettably, the House of Assembly refused to approve the recommendation and it therefore continues having two nominated members among its membership. The House, back then, spat at the expressed wishes of a majority of Anguillians. And judging from Victor Banks’ and Hubert Hughes’ support for the retention of the nominated members, it seems that the House will spit in the faces of the majority of Anguillians another time.

My interest in this issue is seeing my country develop into a thriving representative democracy, thus my support for the removal of the nominated members from the House. They make it less representative and therefore less democratic. Democracy is a system of government in which all those who are affected by a decision have an opportunity in making that decision either directly, or indirectly, through representatives. In our case we make decisions indirectly through elected representatives, as well as indirectly through persons who are unelected. We need to get the unelected out of our law-making chamber.

Because the nominated members are unelected they lack the authority of the electorate to make laws and take other decisions on their behalf. More troubling is the fact that they have no constituency to whom they owe their seats, and to whom they are ultimately responsible. Once nominated, they cannot be removed by the people. And are therefore not answerable and accountable them. They are only answerable and accountable to whoever recommends their names to the Governor, either the Chief Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. In the interest of democracy – increased people’s representation – there should be no place in our House for persons who are not answerable or accountable to the electorate.

Another major concern with nominated members is that they provide a convenient means by which political leaders could bring their friends and business associates, some deserving, most not deserving, in the House. To put it another way, nominated membership is a source of rank political patronage and nothing more. I know of a lot of nominated members who would have lost their deposits had they contested elections. And I agree with Timothy Hodge when he said (2002) that: “Especially in the early years, it seems as if one of the easiest ways to be appointed as a nominated member was to be the person who announced the political meetings and introduced the speakers at meetings of the successful political party.” A further way, I recall, was by holding an umbrella over the party leader’s head when the rain began to fall. To be quite frank, nominated membership is a blithe on our democracy.

Listening to the way Victor and Hubert have been advocating for the retention of nominated members suggests that some of our political leaders do not trust our ability, or our judgment, to elect all of our representatives. For that reason, they seem determined to give themselves the right to choose at least two of them for us. The advocates of nominated membership are insinuating that the Anguillian people are too stupid to be allowed to elect all of the members of the House.

It was precisely against that kind of political thought that nominated members found a place in parliaments over several centuries. The social and economic elite did not trust the judgment of the masses to make laws for the country – had no faith in their ability to elect the right people – and therefore devised nominated chambers to diminish their power and influence.

We here in Anguilla have long boasted, with pride, that our democracy is modeled off the Westminster System with an elected House of Commons and a nominated/hereditary House of Lords, except that we have a unicameral Legislature with elected and nominated members. However, we seem not to take cognizance of the fact that since Tony Blair’s Labour Government came to power in the UK, in 1997, it has taken measures to reform the House of Lords and is working towards turning it into an all elected Upper House. The Labour Government is of the view that a nominated House has no place in modern democratic society.

Yes, we praise the British model. But while the British are taking steps to do away with their nominated House, and while a majority of Anguillians are saying do away with the nominated members in our House, some of our political leaders are hell bent on keeping them there. They are hell bent on keeping them despite the fact that our people have told the 2006 Constitution Reform Commission that they are no longer needed – that they have no place in modern democratic society.

Although I strongly support the Constitution Reform Commission’s recommendation for the removal of the nominated members, there are some arguments that others have advanced for keeping them. To quote Claudell Romney (2006): “These positions can be a medium to introduce specialist knowledge in the House . . . In addition, the two nominated members can be used to bring a measure of independence into the House . . .” I agree with Claudell that “these positions can be a medium to introduce specialist knowledge in the House” but, believe me, that has seldom happened.

Hubert himself complained about that at a meeting of the House of Assembly in early 1985. He told the body that the nominated members were not really providing the quality of advice expected of them. Listen to him: “People who are nominated are nominated on the basis of experience and qualification . . . So I expect that the Honourable Nominated Member would have brought an air of qualification to this House and would try to educate we the illiterate politicians who have only been elected because the people loved us.” That was Hubert in 1985. Today (2007), I have much difficulty in understanding where he is coming from.

Thankfully, we have now reached a stage in our political development where we have a cadre of Anguillians suitably qualified for election to political office. This severely weakens any case for the retention of nominated members. The time has come for such positions to be filled by the elected representatives of the people. Our people are no longer so ‘stupid’, as some politicians still think, that they cannot choose all the members of the House themselves. The Anguillian electorate is now more politically educated.

As regards Claudell’s view that the retention of the two nominated members brings “a measure of independence” to the House, the history of our politics tells us otherwise. The nominated members usually take the position, whether good or bad, of the party which brought them to the House. Claudell Romney was an exception. He was definitely an independent member, with independent views, but people like him are the exception rather than the rule.

An argument that Victor Banks has been constantly putting forward for the retention of the nominated seats is that they allow people who have much to offer Anguilla, but who do not like rigours of electioneering, to be able to get in the House and contribute. Victor’s argument underscores popular sentiment that nominated membership is a means of getting some people in the House through the back door. It is like telling somebody, ‘If yer can’t stand the heat of electioneering, don’t bother contest the seat. We goin put you in as a nominated member.’ That is the essence of special favours in our politics which must be resisted.

Politics is no tea party. It is war. Victor, of all people, should know that because he spared no effort in protecting his political turf when he and Hubert had their differences in 1999. I recall him telling a public meeting (23rd May 1999) that he was prepared to fight Hubert anytime anywhere. Hear him: “If you have to fight an alligator you got to go in the swamp. If you want to fight a pig you got to go in the mud. If you want to fight a rat you got to go in the sewer.” He added: “I am now in the sewer with the rat!” In the sewer with Hubert.

Most certainly, electoral politics is no bed of roses and all those who want to get in the House should be prepared to pay the price. Let them get on a political platform, tell the people where they stand on issues affecting them and ask for their support. That is the fairest, most transparent and most democratic way of putting people in our Legislature.

In concluding my position against the retention of nominated members, I again remind Government that when the 1988 Constitution Committee recommended their removal, the House of Assembly threw out the recommendation. The House had concluded that its members were right and the Committee and the majority of Anguillians were wrong.

Now, almost 20 years later, we have the present Constitution Review Commission making the same recommendation with respect to nominated members. And again we have political leaders, like Victor and Hubert, saying that the Commission and the people are wrong and they are right. Actually, every time, during the last 20 years that Anguillians have had an opportunity to make recommendations for amending their Constitution they have recommended the removal of nominated members.

Yes. It is about 20 years now that our people have been saying, “No nominated members.” And two constitutional reform commissions/committees have said the same thing. I therefore put forward the view that two constitutional reform commissions/committees cannot be wrong. They were convinced that the removal of the nominated members was in keeping with modern democratic practice and would make our system of governance more representative and therefore more democratic. Our people continue to be so convinced. But after 20 years some of our political leaders are not yet convinced. Perhaps they are afraid of democracy.

For some reason, I believe that our Chief Minister, Osbourne Fleming, will show real leadership in this matter and ensure that the people’s 20-year wish is respected. Chief Minister, listen please: two constitutional reform commissions/committees cannot be wrong. Their recommendations have always been the people’s recommendations. Chief Minister, please see if yer could get Victor and your other ministerial colleagues to respect the will of the people who put them in office. I thank you.

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

World News