In a small society like ours when anybody dies, everybody feels the loss. This is especially so when one of our young people is suddenly snatched from us. I refer in this instance to the sad passing of Loraine Brooks on 13th January while in the service of her country. She was a truly remarkable and wonderful young lady who was always radiant and happy and in so doing made everyone who came into contact with her happy. May she rest in peace. To the members of the bereaved family, including my friend Kimi, I extend heartfelt sympathy.

I have not yet been able to get close to George, but I understand that on hearing the news of his daughter’s death he calmly commented: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh.” Well that is George. He is hardly ruffled. He too is well known for his light-heartedness and apt remarks. I always recall, with much laughter, the day when he said that marriage has three rings: the engagement ring, the wedding ring and suffering. There was another occasion when he joked that life in Anguilla was so rough that even the dogs were making noise saying, things ruff, ruff, ruff!

Ruff or smooth, I continue to give my own interpretation of them and, where possible, lighten the darkness. This is my 101st article for The Anguillian newspaper. During the course of my writings I have made many friends. Also many enemies, particularly political enemies. But that is the price one has to pay in the exercise of one’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. I am prepared to pay it and to continue to call a spade a spade. “Who don’t like it, lump it.” And I remind our political leaders that there is much wisdom in the words of Harry Truman who said that in a free society you “punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.” I do not think that we have yet got to that realisation.

Anguillians are longing for the day when they can boast that their beautiful island is one of world’s smallest democracies. I believe we are heading there. We certainly have some democratic institutions but the presence of those institutions is no guarantee of democratic government – is no guarantee of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” In fact, all of the English-speaking countries in the Caribbean have democratic constitutions but are essentially dictatorships – elected dictatorships.

All of the constitutions provide for representative democracy where decisions affecting the wellbeing of the people are taken by a small number of representatives chosen by the people themselves at general elections. This arrangement is based on the principle that the elected representatives would represent the interests of all the people. But what happens in practice is that we end up with up a government of the few, by the few and for the few. The irony is that it is put in place by the many.
Once elections are over the many (the majority of people) are forgotten. Yes. We go to the polls every five years and then the whole country goes back to sleep until election time comes around again. Ask Ronald Webster about it. To quote him (1988): “Coming closer to elections you'll find them [the political leaders] buzzing around you like blue flies asking you for your vote and paying a couple dollars here and there.” It was against that backdrop that the Honourable Kenneth Harrigan was able to tell a post-election public meeting (1994) that “we are not really politicking. Politics is over until five years.”

His remarks highlight a primary drawback of representative democracy as practised in Anguilla. There are no mechanisms in place to involve the people in the political process between elections. Furthermore, the way the political process operates suggests that the people have no function other than to vote governments into office and support them in office through the paying of all kinds of taxes. This view is foremost in my mind for it seems to me that elections are about putting a party organisation in power for the benefit of its inner circle and close supporters. Check it out. Our political parties use the majority to put themselves in power and then forget them. To borrow a phrase from the late Reuben Hodge, nobody gives “two cattle huffs” about them. The people are ignored and treated with contempt, like dirt, once elections are over.

This reminds me of Brother Valentino’s famous calypso, Let The Games Begin, in which he says:
Dey [politicians] promise you di moon and stars
When dey want your vote.
Would you believe dem same characters
When dey get in power would cut your throat?
So de masses keep on getting licks
In this game of politics.

So true. “De masses keep on getting licks, in this game of politics.”

I was making the point that after elections ministers of government refuse to seek people’s views. In fact some of them hide from people especially when there is heightened public debate over a particular issue in order to avoid discussing it with them. I was told about a minister who at times drives through all kinds of bush roads to avoid people. That to get to his office without being seen he drives through Soursop Bottom, Shoal Bay, pass Milly’s Inn, pass Miss May and then on through The Fountain, Brimigen, Lake’s Quarry, Pitch Apple Hole, Milangi, The Red Bottom, True Eyes, North Side and North Valley.

But yer know something? Most ministers feel, and are arrogant about it, that there is no need for them to consult the people because they have a mandate to govern. Vernon Fleming (1993) recalled the Honourable Osbourne Fleming telling him, during a heated argument, that: “I have a mandate from the people. The people gave me their trust and their vote. I don’t have to go back to them for anything so I do as I like!” And I recall the Honourable Victor Banks making a similar statement in the House of Assembly when he said that he had a mandate from the people to decide on which taxes to increase, or not increase, and needed to consult no one.

That is not the way democracy in Anguilla should work. If the function of our representatives is the promotion of the people’s interests then they must consult with them at regular intervals to determine what those interests are. Otherwise only the interests of the party leaders, the party boys and supporters would prevail. But to be fair to the United Front Government, it did attempt a consultative process by the holding of “town meetings” and the setting up a few committees to make recommendations on matters of national concern.

However, what we need are more substantive consultative mechanisms. I now make the point that at this stage in our political development, and in view of the deficiencies of representative democracy, we need such mechanisms more than ever. We need to opt for a system of participatory democracy (grassroots democracy) with mechanisms which allow people to influence, in a more fundamental way, the conduct of government and therefore the decision-making process. Frankly speaking, I am making the case for the institutionalisation of referendums in our politics in order to give the people an opportunity to vote directly on issues of national interest which would impact on the quality of their lives.

I commented briefly on the usefulness of referendums about a year ago when casino gambling was the talk of the town. I said then to let the people decide. I also said that referendums were integral to the practice of participatory democracy and that their use was evidence of direct democracy in action – that there was no better democracy than one in which the people themselves participated directly in the decision-making processes.

Referendums have their advantages. To mention a few: they encourage people to take a more active part in the conduct of their country’s affairs. They give people the feeling of being an integral part of the political system. They would have had hands in the making of important decisions thus ensuring government’s legitimacy and guaranteeing political stability. Most importantly, referendums ensure that decisions of national interest reflect the will of the people rather than the will of a handful of representatives and their close associates. In addition, they make people aware that the responsibility for the shaping of their future rests with them.

Referendums do have a healing effect on society by bringing closure to contentious issues. At the moment casino gambling is still a contentious issue and it could have been put to rest if it was put to a referendum. It will certainly flare up again. Also, referendums have an educative effect on the population. People become better informed on issues which are usually the subject of much public debate.

But, like everything else in life, referendums also have their disadvantages. The principal ones are that majorities might use them to trample on the rights of minorities. Referendums could undermine the instruments of representative government.

Further, their credibility is usually questioned on the grounds that the people may not be sufficiently informed to make sound political decisions on the issues before them. As far as I am concerned, in the case of Anguilla, many people are more informed than their political leaders on a wide range of issues. A lot of times some of them do not have a clue about what is going on. Ronald Webster, a former Chief Minister, alluded to that fact at a public meeting in 1993. He was at the time commenting on our first Country Policy Plan and observed that when a minister of government “opened the document he did not understand it because it had looked like French or Spanish, so he gave it to Mr Fahie [to read].”

By the way, when it comes to reading, it is a fact that some of our ministers, like most Anguillians, would not open a book if it was to save their lives. They do not like to read. To quote Cuthwin Webster (1993): “I called [the minister] and asked him if he read the [Country Policy Plan] document. He said: ‘Cutty, I ain't read a copy yet.’”

Actually, Ronald Webster was very critical of the government’s signing of the Country Policy Plan when he remarked that “if anyone, from Britain, Canada or the United States” had handed one of its ministers a paper to sign he “would have taken it and signed it even if it was his death warrant.”

I believe that Webster went overboard there, but the United Front Government came in for similar criticism when it rushed a set of financial services bills through the House of Assembly, some two years ago, without having fully understood their implications. Some members admitted openly that they did not understand them. Yet they refused to hold any meaningful discussions with the Anguilla Bar Association which came in for some heavy criticism because its views conflicted with those of government. The Bar was dragged through the mud.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the argument that referendums should not be encouraged because our leaders are in a better position than our people to deal with complex issues, is not sound. They are not always in a better position. I believe that the Honourable Eric Reid agrees with me because I heard him telling the December 2002 sitting of the House that some of its members needed “to have their heads examined.” Even the quality of debates in the House tells us that some members are not up to the job.

Most of them do not understand the issues and so we get more froth than mauby. They do not understand the issues and as a result cannot provide the answers, thus the need for more active participation of the people in the political process. The right to go to the polls and cast an X every five years is not enough.

On the balance of the arguments, it is fair to conclude that the advantages of referendums outweigh the disadvantages by far and that there is no doubt that they make for better democracy.

I now take a closer look at referendums to show how they could come about. Firstly, referendums could be initiated by the government itself. Where, for example, government plans to make decisions on any matter of great national interest, like changing the constitution, it could allow the electorate to vote on it. Again, where a matter is one on which public opinion is divided, and where there is deep disagreement between government and the people, it is best to let the people decide by referendum.

Secondly, referendums could come about when the people themselves demand them. These are usually referred to as “initiatives”. When the people on their own initiative demand the passing of certain laws, or the implementation of certain policies, aimed at improving the general wellbeing, they could be given the opportunity to vote on them after satisfying certain requirements. For example, in Switzerland, where referendums are the order of the day, if 2% of the electorate signs a petition calling for a vote on an issue of their concern (and not of government’s concern) the government is obliged to put it to a vote. Further, where government is considering the introduction of a particular law but has no intention of seeking the people’s views on it, the people themselves could call for a referendum, and the government is obliged to hold it, provided they present a petition bearing the signatures of 1% of the electorate. That is indeed democracy in action.
Many modern democracies are now adopting the foregoing mechanisms and their adoption in Anguilla would go a long way towards improving the quality of democracy and of governance here. Fortunately for us, we have a first class opportunity to lay the groundwork for such improvements with the Constitutional and Electoral Reform exercise now underway.

I use this opportunity to welcome Haydn Hughes, President of the Anguilla Independent Movement (AIM) aboard the Reform Committee. He is a young man with ideas and who could make an invaluable contribution to the reform exercise. It is known that he and the Honourable Hubert Hughes (his father) have different views on the conduct of the exercise so that I would not be surprised if one day I hear Hubert calling him a “political prostitute.” After all, he does curse even his own brother Freddie sometimes. And don’t talk ’bout Frankie!

Pardon the diversion. I say in conclusion that I am convinced of the usefulness of referendums and will ask the Reform Committee to consider making provision for them in our new Constitution. Our people should have the right to participate more actively in the shaping of their own destinies. I say also that substantial changes must be made to the Constitution if we are to reduce significantly the degree to which de masses keep on getting licks in this game of politics.

Mr. Colville Petty

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

World News