Found at: http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/articleprint/1820/-1/135/
|
Walter G. Hodge Memorial Lecture 2004
|
By Colville L. Petty
“THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME.” HOW FAR IS THIS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN ANGUILLA?
Let me say forthwith that I do not propose to get involved in the many definitions of what constitutes constitutional and political development, suffice it to say that I regard it as a state of organisation of political life in which the performance of political functions are in accordance with the highest principles and practices of democracy.
The way I intend handling this subject is to choose a period from whence we came as a point of reference against which to compare where we are at this stage in our history. We could only determine the extent to which we have changed, or not changed, by comparing where we are at present with where we were some time before. In this regard, I have chosen the early 1820s, almost 200 years ago, as the point of reference. My main reason for so doing is that it was around that time that Anguilla had its first elected institution based on constituency representation.
I now go back to those years. A direct consequence of the 1825 union between Anguilla and St Kitts was the abolition of the Anguilla Council of officials and the creation of a system of local government under a Church-State institution called the Vestry. It was established by the Vestry Act, 1827, which placed control of Anguilla’s local affairs in the hands of “twelve respectable” white men, one of whom had to be the residing Anglican Minister. According to Section 1 of the Act, all Vestrymen had to be freeholders, Protestants and age twenty-one years and over. A quorum was nine members.
Back then, Anguilla was a slave society so the mass of black slaves were shut out from the political process. So too were all women, the free coloureds, free blacks and non-Protestants. They were all denied the right to vote and to be elected to the Vestry.
The Vestry, charged with responsibility for managing the island’s affairs, was empowered to raise revenue sufficient to cover expenditure.
|
|
Guests at the Walter G. Hodge Anguilla Day Memorial Lecture
|
For the purpose of Vestry elections, which were held once a year, Anguilla was divided into three electoral districts viz. Spring Division, Valley Division and Road Division. Each Division was entitled to elect four representatives. However, whenever the Anglican Minister was resident in Anguilla the Valley Division elected three.
The composition of the Vestry underwent some changes with the passing of the 1846 Vestry Act. It provided for a Vestry of thirteen members including two ex officio members viz. a Stipendiary Magistrate (as President of the Vestry) and the Anglican Minister. A most important change was that the Act dispensed with the requirement that all Vestrymen had to be white men. What happened was that after emancipation it was no longer legally possible to deny black men the right to vote, and to contest elections, and therefore Clause 4 of the Act provided that, “Every male inhabitant . . . [whether black or white] who shall have attained the age of twenty one years” and who met certain property qualifications was “eligible to be elected as a Vestryman” and to vote at elections.
Women, whether white, black or coloured, continued to be excluded from the political process.
Further changes to the local government system occurred in April 1867 when the membership of the Vestry was reduced from 13 to 7 (one of whom was the Stipendiary Magistrate an ex officio member). The changes provided for only three elected members (one for each of the three electoral divisions) and for three members nominated by the Governor. The introduction of nominated members was designed to prevent the black population from taking control of the Vestry.
The Governor’s powers of nomination, and therefore ability to influence the composition of the Vestry, were increased most significantly by the Vestry Act [No. 17] of 17th October 1867. It gave him the power to appoint the entire membership of the Vestry in the event that no candidates had registered for elections.
It is worth noting here that every time the Vestry Act was amended the powers of the Governor were increased, thus diluting further the limited authority of the elected Vestrymen. Actually, the powers of the Vestry were so eroded that it was disbanded in 1883 and responsibility for the island’s day-to-day administration was placed in the hands of a District Magistrate.
I now make the point that since those times, Anguilla experienced several constitutional and political changes. We have been part of Presidencies and of colonies of one kind or another. We have been in and out of Leeward Islands Federations as well as in and out of the West Indies Federation. We passed through Statehood, declared independence from St Kitts, became an Independent Republic, later a British Dependent Territory and now a British Overseas Territory; and yet, constitutionally and politically, we appear not to have moved far beyond the vestry system of local government.
What is the evidence? In providing it I will compare the main elements of the Vestry system with the system of government which obtains in Anguilla today.
We now know that the Vestry (in 1827) had twelve members all of whom were white men, and all of whom were elected except for the Anglican Minister. Today, our House of Assembly also has twelve members irrespective of race or sex. So in terms of numbers, the size of our only elected institution has not changed. It has not changed even to take into consideration the increase in population size and the need for better representation. It makes one wonder whether there is something magical about the number 12.
What has changed, though, is that we have moved from an almost totally elected Vestry (1827) to a House of Assembly in which five of its twelve members have not been chosen by the electorate.
It was observed earlier that when nominated members were introduced in the Vestry in 1867 the reason was fear of putting too much ‘power’ in the hands of the “uneducated” black majority. It was a manifestation of a lack of confidence in the ability of representatives of black people to manage their own affairs.
Regrettably, to this day, that kind of thinking has not changed. It still exists but it is couched differently in support of the retention of nominated members. Some of our people argue that we need nominated members in the House to raise the standard of debates because, most times, the better qualified people do not get elected. Therefore, what is happening in Anguilla today is that the educated middle class, mainly of conservative orientation and supportive of the status quo, is assured a place in our legislature through space provided through nominated membership. But no matter how we try to justify their inclusion it is difficult to deny the fact that the appointment of nominated members is a reflection of our lack of faith in working class people to elect suitable leaders. In my view their presence in our legislature makes it less democratic and is a blight on our democratic process.
|
|
His Excellency The Governor & Mrs Huckle, Deputy Governor Capes and Ms. Rhona Richardson
|
This situation is compounded by the fact that the House of Assembly, like the Vestry in 1846, has two ex officio members. There has been no change in numbers. The combination of two nominated and two ex officio members in our 12-member Chamber gives the un-elected members considerable political weight and influence. A similar situation exists in our Executive Council where three of its seven members are not elected, have no mandate from the people but still have the power to make ineffective the wishes of those who have a mandate.
Although our House has two ex officio members neither of them is an Anglican Minister, as in Vestry times. In fact section 37 (1) (b) of our Constitution explicitly excludes ministers of religion from membership of the House. The Rev John A. Gumbs’ appointment as First Nominated Member, in 1994, was the subject of much public discussion but it was argued successfully that he did not fit the definition of “minister of religion” under section 37 (2) of the Constitution.
Incidentally, while our Constitution keeps ministers of religion out of our House of Assembly, we now have one of them as House Chaplain. He opens every meeting with a prayer like in the days of the Vestry. Again, while our Constitution attempts to keep Church and State separate, it is now a requirement that for someone to qualify as Governor of Anguilla he or she must be a “religious person.” So revealed Chief Minister Osbourne Fleming in his welcome remarks at the swearing in of Governor Alan Huckle on Friday 28th May. The more things change the more they remain the same.
I now come to voter qualifications and qualifications for election to office. I repeat here that in the early 1800s only white men, who were respectable and Protestant, and who met certain property qualifications, had the right to vote and to become members of the Vestry. Everybody else was excluded from the process. Today, that is no longer the case. With the granting of universal adult suffrage, in 1952, under a new St Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla Constitution, all Anguillians over the age of 21 years, irrespective of sex, race, colour, class or creed, were given the right to vote and to contest elections. That was a significant milestone in the political advancement of our people.
But it is most disappointing that our women continually fail to exercise their right to hold political office. In this regard, they seldom contest elections for a seat in the House of Assembly which comprises twelve men (and no women) like the Vestry of the early 1800s. Not since the days of Idahlia Gumbs and Teacher Albena, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, has any woman sat in the House as a member. It is as if they still do not have the right to vote and still feel that politics is for men only. Actually, some of our political leaders still seem to think so. I recall Eddy Baird making fun at Blondell Rodgiers, during the 1999 elections campaign, when he said that a seamstress had no right in politics and that Blondell should continue sewing drawers and pantalettes.
That aside, it is somewhat ironic that while we often brag that our women were in the forefront of the Anguilla Revolution, not one of them has a seat in our House, except for Sister Madge who is the Clerk. Our women need to move beyond the years of the Vestry.
Political practice in Anguilla, in general, needs to move beyond those years. Even the question of what constitutes a workable quorum in our House still needs to be addressed. A quorum in the 12-member Vestry (in 1827) was nine members. It was too large and held up the work of the Vestry, so it was later reduced to seven. Today, we have a quorum of eight i.e. two-thirds of the members of the House, in addition to the Speaker. And even though a majority of members maybe present, a minority could obstruct the business of the House. We need to be reminded that it was the “bigness” of the quorum which held up the business of Hubert Hughes’ Government from 1999 to 2000. At that time four members refused to come to the House and even though seven members plus the Speaker were present it was unable to transact any business. The Government collapsed and new elections followed.
By the way, elections for membership of the Vestry, we now know, were held once a year. Today, elections for the House must be held every five years. But there have been instances when it appeared as though we were moving back to the 1800s. We had elections in 1980 and 1981. Then, fairly recently, in 1999 and 2000.
I wish at this point to deal with the issue of “the executive authority of Anguilla,” the status of which has not changed despite our many constitutional changes. During the days of the Vestry “the executive authority of Anguilla” was exercised by the Governor, an Englishman, whose office was located in Antigua. Today, almost two hundred years later, the only thing that has changed is that his office is now located in Anguilla, but “the executive authority of Anguilla” continues to be exercised by him. The Governor remains at the apex of our constitutional and political practice.
In order not to lose sight of how little we have changed, I go back to the 1800s. The Vestry had no power to make law. Such power was vested in the Governor. Similarly, today, the Anguilla House of Assembly has no power to make law. Such power is vested in the Governor. Section 47 of our Constitution provides that, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Anguilla.” It is the Governor who has law-making power, not the House of Assembly.
Of course, the Constitution requires him to make law with the advice and consent of the House but when it was amended in 1990 the Governor was given the power to make law without such advice and consent if he so chooses. Section 56 of the Constitution gives him the power to pass any law he wants if the House of Assembly refuses or fails to pass it.
There is no doubt that such power represents a serious erosion of the already limited powers of our House of Assembly and that the amendment, to which I just referred, was a retrograde step at a time when we should have been moving forward. Another retrograde step was the amendment which took responsibility for “international financial services” from our Minister of Finance and gave it to the Governor. I observed earlier that every time the Vestry Act was amended the powers of the Governor were increased, and I now point out that it was no different in 1990 when our Constitution was last amended. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
During the days of the Vestry, the Governor had exceptional discretionary powers. For example, the Vestry Act [No. 17] 1867 gave him the power, as alluded to before, to appoint the entire membership of the Vestry in the event that no candidates had registered for elections. Today, he has no such power with respect to House of Assembly elections but the appointment of Chief Minister is left to his discretion. According to Section 24 (1) of the Constitution: “The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall appoint as Chief Minister the elected member of the Assembly who, in his judgment, is likely to command the support of a majority of the elected members of the Assembly.” A similar principle applies to the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Anguilla Constitution is inundated with discretionary powers of the Governor. As a consequence, too much of our politics – too much of our people’s future – is dependent on the discretion of one man. And I would add that there are too many instances of the exercise of power based on his “judgment” or “after consultation with.” No man is infallible and this situation is unsafe.
Also unsafe is the extensive reserved powers with which the Governor is vested. He therefore continues to have undisputed control over several crucial areas of public policy. It is not democracy when one man exercises so much power and influence over a people. Furthermore, the extent to which our Constitution has reposed power in the Governor suggests that there is really nothing to repose in our elected leaders.
For the foregoing reasons our political leaders, like the Vestrymen in the 1800s, continue to be in office but not in power. In the 1800s we voted to put men in office, not in power. Likewise, today, we vote to put men in office, but not in power. We cannot vote them in power because the greatest concentration of political power in Anguilla is in the hands of the non-elected members of our Executive Council. And what is of much concern is that our political leaders do not seem bothered in the least. To borrow a phrase from the late Reuben Hodge, they “don’t give two cattle huffs.”
Our journey from the 1800s to the present is renowned for the transition from a slave society, devoid of human rights, to a free society providing fundamental human rights. But our constitutional and political experiences, thus far, have not been so pronounced and have not provided us with the political rights necessary to enable us to chart our own destiny. Certainly, there have been changes in the structures of our political institutions but more in form, than in substance. And while we have new political structures, the centre of gravity of our politics continues to be the Governor.
Politics is about power and our Constitution sets out the rules governing the exercise of power. But no matter how these rules have changed political power in Anguilla has always ended up the same place – in the Governor. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And they will remain the same until there is a change in the way we see our politics – until there is a change in our political culture.
The days of the Vestry were noted for a parochial political culture in which people had no interest in national politics. Almost two hundred years later we have a subject political culture, the hallmark of which is political passiveness. There are no strong feelings towards political issues. And there is hardly any questioning of the policies and actions of our governments; thus the absence of accountability, openness and transparency. Further, because we are a politically passive people, there is no groundswell support for the constitutional and electoral reform process now underway. To think about it, some people may well be saying, “Why bother? In Anguilla, the more things change, the more they remain the same.”
I thank you.
Mr. Petty delivering lecture
|