The parade of troupes for Summer Festival 2007 will be the poorer without Calf (Ralph Connor) who passed away quietly on Thursday 24th May at age 53. Calf, who wore a ring in his nose, was so nicknamed because of his rare ability to moo.

He was an active participant in the annual parade of troupes. His one-man troupe never missed a parade so much so that I once suggested that he should be awarded for appearing on the streets of the Valley more than any other troupe. His costumes were innovative and eye-catching. I recall one year when he appeared with a string of about eight rum bottles tied around his waist. I was not surprised because he loved his rum.

Calf was a kind and humble person who worked hard for his living. Here is an example of his kindness. A few years ago a lady went to the Princess Alexandra Hospital to see her son who was seriously ill. She met Calf there and he comforted her with these words: “Lady, don’t cry. Everything is in the hands of God. If yer son needs blood, just call on me and I would give him some.”

The good turnout at the thanksgiving service for his life, at Two Sons Funeral Home on Saturday 2nd June, was an indication of people’s love for him. I was surprised that Jew Fleming was not there. Dem say dat Calf had love her to die. Also absent were our politicians. It was not election time for them to hug and kiss, a practice which Iwandai (2005) detested: “You see that big hug and kiss! I don’t like it! When we accept that hug and kiss, it’s the point we miss.”

We will definitely miss Calf for Summer Festival 2007 and I am using this medium to urge the Festival Coordinator to ensure the observance of a moment of silence, during the parade of troupes, in honour of his sad passing.

Having said that, I commend highly John Benjamin and his various committees for the splendid work they are doing in preparation for the Summer Festival which begins at the end of next month. They are leaving no stone unturned – making every effort – to ensure that this Festival is better than last year’s.

However, when one contrasts those preparations with our preparations for the upcoming constitutional talks with a British delegation due here in a couple of weeks, one wonders what has gone wrong with our elected representatives. The British delegation will be arriving shortly and there is hardly any mention of the important issue of constitutional reform. The issue seems to have fallen by the wayside. But yer know something! Constitutional and electoral reform has never been a priority of any government in Anguilla since the early post-revolutionary years.

The town hall meetings which Government and Opposition had been holding jointly across the island, to solicit the public’s views on the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission, appear to have been called off. The last one at Island Harbour, several weeks ago, attracted only two persons which may have prompted the cancellation of all other meetings.

Some people are of the view that the low turnout at the meeting was due to the absence of free food and drink. They observed that it is quite difficult, in recent times, to get Anguillians out to any function unless food and drink are being served. While there might be some truth in that observation, I attribute the low turnouts to considerable public disinterest in the reform process.

Most Anguillians see constitutional reform exercises as a waste of time because at the end of the day the members of the House of Assembly ignore the Commissions’ recommendations and do what they want – and do their own ting. That was the situation in 1990 and there is every indication that it may not be any different in 2007.

It is against that background that I put forward the view that constitutional reform exercises which involve consultations with members of the public – which seek their views – are designed to give people the feeling that they are meaningfully involved in the reform process. But they are not involved because at the end of the day their views have no weight. The reform exercises give the appearance of democracy in action but are more smoke than substance. It appears that our political leaders set up the commissions as a means of allowing people to let off steam.

Notwithstanding that, the Commission’s report presently under consideration is reflective of several useful recommendations, from the people, with respect to the democratisation of Anguilla’s political system, but there is widespread feeling that the recommendations will come to naught. The people’s feelings are not unfounded because the history of political practice in Anguilla has shown that whenever our political leaders have a choice between more democracy and less democracy they choose less democracy.

Further, the people’s feelings are not unfounded because the history of political practice in Anguilla has also shown that whenever our political leaders have to choose between their interests and the people’s interest they choose their interests. It has shown that the primary concern of our political leaders is to ensure that changes to the Constitution do not weaken or threaten their grip on power. For that reason any changes which threaten their political survival never see the light of day.

A matter in which our political leaders are showing some concern is a reduction in the powers of the Governor and the transfer of those powers into their hands. I have no major problem with that but ask, what about provisions for putting more power in the hands of the people? Indeed, what about people power? What about power to the people? There is hardly a word about power to the people – about placing power in their hands to enable them to make our political leaders accountable. The House of Assembly lacks the capacity to make them accountable thus the need to empower the people to undertake that critical political function.
The nature of our constitutional set up is such that there are no checks on the Executive. To this end, I again propose the inclusion of provisions in our Constitution for the recall of any elected member who is not, in the opinion of his constituents, carrying out his or her mandate. (The provision would give people the power to remove a representative from the House before the end of his or her 5-year term.) Further, I once more advocate the institutionalisation of referendums in our politics in order to give the people an opportunity to vote directly on issues of national interest. Referendums are integral to the practice of participatory democracy.
Believe me, I long for the day when I could see meaningful constitutional and electoral reform in Anguilla, but it is no secret that there is much foot-dragging on the current reform process. Our political leaders seem ‘dead fraid’ of change. The current reform process started five years ago, in 2002, but the rate at which it is proceeding is such that any meaningful changes to the Constitution are unlikely to come into force in time for elections constitutionally due in 2010. At the rate things are going the more likely time for their implementation is 2015 (some 13 years after the process had begun).

The present crop of leaders are so deeply in love with the existing constitutional and electoral arrangements which put them in office time after time that they are in no haste to change them. If there are no changes in the months ahead then there is every likelihood that the same seven elected members will be returned to the House in 2010. Judging from the returns of the 2005 elections, an exception may be Albert Hughes (Belto).

It is the aforementioned attitude, on the part of our political leaders, which has contributed significantly to public perception of our House of Assembly being the major stumbling block in the path of the democratisation of our political system. I am one of those who hold that view.

But there is still a glimmer of hope for greater democracy. I say that because we now have a Chief Minister, Osbourne Fleming, who is a devout Christian and I trust that in his handling of the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission he takes inspiration from the Holy Bible and be guided by the example of King David.

David had under active consideration the issue of bringing “the Ark to Jerusalem” and the way he went about it is most instructive. 1 Chronicles 13:1 – 4 tells us that, “David consulted the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader . . . . And all the congregation said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.”
That is the essence of democracy. David not only consulted the people. He respected their wishes and did precisely what the majority of them had decided upon.

With respect to our Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission exercise, the people were consulted. They made their views known and the Commission recommended accordingly. In taking the matter forward our Chief Minister would please his God and his people if he follows the example of David. To do so is in keeping with the highest principles of democratic practice. To do so is to take the decent way forward. To do so is honourable. Accept the Commission’s recommendations for they are “right in the eyes of all the people” who made them.

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

World News