So wrote Marejah Webster in tribute to the life of 15-year-old Jamida Webster. Before Jamida could get her fire burning somebody extinguished her life. I can think of no reason for her killing other than that she was young, beautiful, vibrant, talented and too good to be among us. And as Kalyn Bartlette wrote in her tribute:

Jamida was such a gem.
She was a rose in the most beautiful garden.
She was the light the world needed . . .”

She was also the light that Anguilla needed but she was not allowed to shine in fullness. She was not allowed to blossom. Yet within the few short years that she lived, Jamida had begun to make an impact on Anguillian society particularly among the young. The high esteem in which she was held was evident by the huge number of people who attended the Service of Celebration and Thanksgiving for her life, at the Mount Fortune Seventh-Day Adventist Church on Friday 28th March. People from all walks of life – from all across the island – filled the church to pay their last respects. The high esteem in which she was held was evident by the many glowing tributes, lasting some two hours, before the start of the service. The high esteem in which she was held was evident by the many wreaths which were laid on her final resting place. Sleep our little one, sleep.

All Anguilla still mourns Jamida’s tragic and senseless loss. My sympathy goes out particularly to her parents Iris Hughes and Kent Webster who should take comfort from Psalm 30:5: “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.”

But Anguilla will continue to weep for a while before that joy cometh. Jamida’s killer is still on the loose and this society will know no peace until he is apprehended and brought to justice.

Anguilla will continue to weep until the violence in our schools and wider society ceases. It is my prayer that the march under the banner “Community Against Violence,” on Tuesday 25th March, got across the message that the violence must end. Caroline Davis’ poem Anguilla Crying, which she read at the end of the march, touched me. The last lines warned:

Don’t chase fame and fortune
It’s far too high a price
For soon we will be known as
Tranquility . . . killed by vice.

They also reminded me of Anguilla’s tourism promotional slogan, Tranquility Wrapped in Blue, and that the cycle of violence could harm our image as an upscale tourist destination. They caused me to hope that the negatives of the past weeks give way to positives.

Actually, there is some positive news. It is that the United Nations Special Committee of 24 on Decolonialism will be holding its Annual Conference here from 21st – 23rd May. Delegates representing British, French and American territories, from all across the globe, are expected to be in attendance. It will be a big event and we will no doubt get a better understanding of the kinds of political and other issues which concern people in other non-self-governing territories like ours. It will enable us to learn from their experiences.

I want us to learn also from our own history and I now go back to 1984 when the Committee of 24 sent a fact-finding Mission here to sound out our people’s feelings on the question of political independence. I am doing this to give an appreciation of how far we have progressed on the issue since then. At that time the ruling Anguilla National Alliance (ANA) Government put up a strong case against independence in keeping with its strong anti-independence campaign during general elections earlier that year.

The ANA took the position that the undeveloped state of the economy was a hindrance to political independence. Its memorandum to the Mission made the point that “the rock-bed of a people's ability to assume . . . [independence was] its economic capacity to do so and . . . [that] when the economic base and the societal experience [were] . . . firmly established, then a people can reach out and stand on the high point of independence.” It concluded: “We have used our telescopic binoculars and we do not see . . . [independence for Anguilla] on the horizon as yet. But yet, the horizon is as far as . . . present circumstances are allowed to prevail; on the other hand, it could be as near as the construction of a truly viable economic and social order . . . can bring it.”

The Anguilla Democratic Party took a similar position: “Our party can state categorically that we have absolutely no intention to pursue the question of independence at this time; however as a proud people, neither do we intend to be a Territory which is excessively burdensome to the United Kingdom. . . . Despite the fact that political independence is not in question, certainly we are ambitious enough not to accept the welfarism of economic dependency.”

Apart from economic considerations the attitude of Anguilla’s political leaders towards independence, at that time, was also influenced by the political experiences of several of the independent Caribbean countries. They looked at the political upheavals which occurred in Dominica, Grenada, Trinidad and St Lucia, during the 1970s and 1980s, as examples of the kinds of problems which accompany independence and concluded that Anguilla should not go down that route until it was able to pay its own way.

After the UN had listened to the views of the people it too concluded that independence was not a major concern – was not on their political agenda. To quote its findings: “There was a genuine apprehension among the people of the Territory that independence without a substantial measure of economic viability might in fact place Anguilla in a new situation of greater external dependence of one kind or another.” The Mission explained: “This apprehension is based primarily on the belief that Anguilla lacks the political experience and basic economic and social infrastructures to shoulder the responsibilities incumbent on an independent State.”

Its remarks did not stop there. Having understood the Anguillians’ thinking on the issue, and the special circumstances which influenced that thinking, it recommended that “political education . . . should . . . be intensified so that the people . . . may freely discuss all of the options available to them and the implications of their choice in the exercise of their right to self-determination and independence.”

Regrettably, the education process had never started and our thinking on independence, nineteen years on, remains virtually the same. There have been no structured efforts by any of our governments, or non-government organisations, for discussion on options on the way forward. In fact, it is only the newly-formed Anguilla Independence Movement (AIM) which is keeping the independence flame alive through a process of political education.

The ultimate goal of all colonised people is political independence which makes them masters of their own destiny. We should be no exception and must begin the process of eventually wresting control of our political institutions from our colonial masters. Of course we have our own Executive Council (chaired by the Governor) and House of Assembly. But there are serious limitations to their powers. It cannot be otherwise because Section 22 of our Constitution provides for the Governor to exercise, on behalf of Her Majesty, “the executive authority of Anguilla.” The Governor has undisputed control over crucial areas of public policy. The subjects of defence, external affairs, international financial services, internal security (including the Police) and the public service are all in his domain.

Dissatisfaction with the enormity of the Governor’s powers, and the way they are exercised, were criticised not only by the Honourable Hubert Hughes (when he was Chief Minister) but also by the Honourable Eric Reid a minister of government. I recall him in a radio broadcast (1989) raising hell for what he considered an abuse of power by the Governor with respect to the dismissal of a nurse against the advice of the ministers of government. Listen to him: “The Government views the failure of the Governor [Geoffrey Whittaker] to be guided by the elected representatives as a very serious constitutional crisis . . . The forcing through of the decision . . . [to dismiss the nurse], in total disregard for the strong sentiments of the duly elected members of government, represents a callous disregard for the democratic process and is nothing short of the naked exercise of colonial authority reminiscent of the turbulent day of the postwar decolonisation era in many former British colonies. . . .”

The potential for such conflict is still there and was further entrenched with the amending of the Constitution in 1990. One amendment gave the Governor power to pass laws if the House of Assembly fails to pass them. The power is provided under section 56 which reads, in part: “If the Governor considers that it is expedient in the interests of public order or public faith . . . that any Bill or motion proposed in the Assembly should have effect, then, if the Assembly fail to pass the Bill or to carry the motion within such time and in such form as the Governor thinks reasonable and expedient, the Governor, acting in his discretion, may, at any time that he thinks fit . . . declare that the Bill or motion shall have effect as if it had been passed or carried by the Assembly . . .”

That amendment represented a serious erosion of the already limited powers of our House of Assembly. It was a retrograde step at a time when we should have been moving forward. Another retrograde step was an amendment which gave the Governor responsibility for “international financial services or any directly related aspect of finance.” The power was taken from our Minister of Finance.

This same arrangement exists in the Cayman Islands. Its undesirability was highlighted in a money-laundering case in the courts there in January this year. According to OffshoreAlert, of Cayman, the case revealed that “the island’s senior anti-money laundering officer ha[d] been selling secrets to British intelligence since 1990” and that “the activity [undercover operations against a company] was carried out with the knowledge and approval of successive Governors and Attorneys General but kept hidden from the locally-elected Government Minister.” The activity, OffshoreAlert said, “was supported by unregulated wire-tapping” which was authorised by the “Governor upon the request of the person selling the secrets, . . . Director of Cayman’s Financial Reporting Unit (CAYFIN), . . . completely bypassing the local court system . . . The wire-tapping was carried out using a switching mechanism established by Cable & Wireless.”

Palmavon Webster, President of the Anguilla Financial Services Association, saw the Cayman experience as “a timely godsend which would strengthen the argument that control of the Anguilla Financial Services Sector needs to be returned to the representatives of the people.” Incidentally, no one is saying that the same thing happens here but our constitutional arrangements are such that it could happen.

The Cayman experience also helps us to understand better what Hubert meant when he said, over Radio Antilles (1995), that Anguilla had two governments: one run by the Chief Minister and the other by the Governor. Whether we have one or two governments is often dependent on the type of Governors we get. And that brings me to my next point. When the way a Constitution operates is dependent largely on the discretion of a Governor – on the personality of the holder of the office – the exercise of its provisions is unpredictable, haphazard and politically destabilising.

We have had our difficulties because sometimes we got Governors who, to use a local saying, did not worth a fart in a gale of wind. Hubert did not think much about Robert Harris whom he said (1999) was “not Governor’s material” and that “it was degrading to send this type of character to be Governor.” However, the late Alan Hoole was the apple of his eye. He boasted (2000): “I keep his picture almost under my pillow. Everyday I look at it because to me he is like a lover of mine. The man was an angel.”

But some Governors came with their prejudices and with little regard for our elected representatives and local expertise. Many of us still recall the raids, which one of them authorised, on a few homes here, without telling the Commissioner of Police about them. To quote Vernon Fleming (1993): “It is a shame and downright shame! Not even the Chief of Police in Anguilla is trusted by [the Governor].”

The foregoing circumstances remind us, in no uncertain terms, that the Governor is the centre of gravity of our political system. They tell us that if we are to make any meaningful political advancement the centre of gravity must be located among our democratically elected representatives. The Constitutional and Electoral Reform exercise which is now underway offers us the best chance to shift it to where it belongs. In addition, it offers the best chance for us to refine our democratic institutions. That is why our people need to get involved in the exercise in a meaningful way.

There are some among us who advocate opting for political independence now but there is, at present, no groundswell of support for it. Until then we must work on shaping the constitution to suit our own peculiar circumstances. And for sure, we cannot be serious about going independent if we have no interest in the constitution-making exercise. Furthermore, we cannot be serious about going independent when there is widespread political apathy and when most of the populace is politically uneducated and psychologically unprepared.

Political and social change begin in the mind and, as Archie Singham wrote in The Hero and the Crowd in Colonial Polity, “genuine decolonization involves personality changes and changes in the social and economic order.” Until those changes occur – until the psychological scars created by a history of colonisation have been removed – political independence is still some time away. Until then our elected representatives will continue to be in office but not in power. They will smell political power but never taste it. Yes. Smell it, but not taste it. They will see it but not touch it. And we will continue being creatures of destiny rather than creators of our destiny. These are all reasons why independence should dominate our political thinking as our ultimate political goal. Any other option would spell disaster for our survival as a unique Anguillian people.

Colville L. Petty

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

World News