Fair Play

Jeunesses Musicales International (JMI) and the World Bank Institute http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/ are pleased to announce the launch 1 February 2010 of Fair Play - Anti-Corruption Youth Voices http://www.jmi.net/page.php?n=3&ID=12, a global competition for original songs by young musicians on the theme of anti-corruption and good governance.

The competition is an initiative of the Global Anti-Corruption Youth Network, a worldwide network of civil society organizations with the specific agenda of fighting corruption. Winners of Fair Play - Anti-Corruption Youth Voices will be invited to perform at the group's international summit Spring 2010 in Brussels, Belgium.

"This is not an idol search like most music competitions targeting youth today," says project coordinator Kate Declerck "this is a call for young musicians to join the global anti-corruption youth movement, and ensure that their messages are heard by the global community."

Fair Play - Anti-Corruption Youth Voices has nine (9) international musical ambassadors - top young artists from Bangladesh, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Lebanon, Macedonia, Philippines, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe, who have recorded and released their own original tracks on corruption in order to motivate and engage young people worldwide in the fight against corruption.

Here are the first anti-corruption music videos online from ambassadors Ajob (Bangladesh) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_XZd0xFZVk, Fareeq el Atrash (Lebanon) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2x6D2hvm4, Lesen Udar (Macedonia) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suyrOwYEyK8, The Ryan Cayabyab Singers (Philippines) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SfSdLi8VI, Steven Sogo (Burundi) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4qJteGT3CQ!

All music and videos, including those by ambassadors African Destiny (Zimbabwe), Blessed Sons (Sierra Leone), Kamer Jingles (Cameroon) and Profetas (Colombia) can be heard here: http://www.jmi.net/page.php?n=3&ID=12

The competition is open to all musicians under 35 years of age, from any country. Please download the full Competition Guidelines: http://www.jmi.net/pub.php?ID=66

To enter the competition candidates should upload their anti-corruption video to YouTube and send the link to kate@jmi.net along with the completed Application Form.

Get connected with the lastest news, music and videos by becoming a fan of Fair Play - Anti-Corruption Youth Voices on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fair-Play-Anti-Corruption-Youth-Voices/273959194790?ref=search&sid=556166120.3496496731..1

Kate Declerck

Programs Officer

Jeunesses Musicales International

Palais des Beaux Arts

Rue Baron Horta 13

1000 Brussels

Belgium

T. +32 2 513 97 74

F. +32 2 514 47 55

M. +32 487 16 39 31

E-mail: kate@jmi.net

Skype: kate-jmi

http://www.jmi.net

Malfunction

System malfunction?  Overseas Report has a very interesting article by Benito Wheatley on the British Virgin Islands political culture.  Everything he says is applicable to Anguilla.  I urge you to read it for yourself.  His point is that the people of the BVI are discontented with the political system of that Overseas Territory.  He ascribes this discontent to the political culture of the Territory. 

In the BVI, as in Anguilla, recent governments can claim to have improved the territory’s progress and development.  Yet, some areas of society are worse off than previously.  Something is undermining government’s effectiveness.  He believes that the blame lies in certain political practices that have been adopted.  It is not that the politicians are particularly corrupt, it is that the system they have inherited and have continued to cultivate seems almost designed to cause suspicion and disquiet. 

The first corrupt practice he refers to is post-election patronage.  The culture of Anguilla, as in the BVI, and no doubt of every British Overseas Territory in the West Indies, is that the first thing a new government does is to dissolve the various Boards, Commissions and Committees established by the previous administration, and appoint their own political supporters in their place, no matter how inappropriate and incompetent they are.  They say it is expected of them, and they are only considering the expectations of their followers.  There is nothing further from the truth.  This is a system of British Foreign Office encouraged victimisation that has existed in our Leeward Islands since the earliest colonial times.  Political victimisation is designed to muzzle a segment of the population and to inhibit free speech in order to give the administration free reign.  It makes life easier for the Foreign Office as well as for the local administration.  It is an evil system that the British themselves have now done away with.  No politician in that country can appoint a single person to a Board or a Committee without that person being vetted by an independent body established for the purpose of ensuring that ability and merit outweighs political patronage.

He calls the second problem with our governments the “headstrong” approach to governance.  We in Anguilla well know what he means.  This is the system whereby Ministers are encouraged to believe that only they know best.  There is no need for real consultation with the people on certain matters.  They have been appointed “to rescue the people from themselves”.  Ministers, by their election to the House and appointment by the Governor, believe they have been empowered to take decisions, even when they are contrary to the opinion and advice of technical experts.  There is no need to give specific examples from Anguilla.  Every one of the public works projects, awards of licences, and granting of permits over the last ten years have proceeded under this system.  It is facilitated through the agency of compliant permanent secretaries.  The inevitable result of this style is that public confidence in the integrity of government leaches away.  The public becomes more and more disenchanted with the system of governance.  Their only pathetically inadequate remedy is the quinquennial return to the polls.  It is inadequate because the flaw lies in the system that each administration functions under, not with the individuals who happen to have been elected.

Tied to this problem of the headstrong approach to governance is the lack of transparency.  Contracts are awarded under a veil of secrecy.  Villagers wake up in the morning to find that a public road has been bulldozed through their midst in the night.  The Chief Surveyor approves the alteration of boundary marks when the affected neighbours have not been notified of the proposed change.  The public works tendering process is neither constitutionally mandated nor otherwise protected from political interference.  On the contrary, public works contracts are viewed as a political opportunity to keep contractors happy and in the right camp.  Worse, many contracts are awarded to political favourites without any consideration of the public interest in having the work done at a reasonable cost and to an adequate standard.  The standard argument in support of this approach is that if government had to consult the public on every issue nothing would get done.  Our governments fail to accept that a proper functioning democracy depends on a consistent and dependable consultative process.  People who are affected by public works decisions must be given a chance to make their input, even if it slows the pace of government.

His final criticism is the corrupting influence of the constituency system.  We in Anguilla all know about that.  The politician with the means to buy off the majority of his voters is almost guaranteed to win his seat in the House.  When most elections are won by majorities of less than one hundred, it helps if you have more relatives in your village or district than the other candidate.  We expect our politicians to favour the constituency from which they were elected.  We demand the right to approach the Minister and ask for his help with a personal problem, even if it means corrupting the system designed for the protection of the public.  Planning permission objections are overruled, work permits are granted, and residence permits are awarded, depending on who is the individual applying.  This is so routine that Ministers tout it as proof of their concern for the interests of the little man, a source of popularity.  It is not recognised for the corruption that it is.

The blame for this must be put where it belongs.  The political system, the Westminster Model, does not function efficiently in Anguilla.  We need to put more checks and balances in place.  Structural change is needed in the way we do government in Anguilla.  A course of re-education for all our senior officials in the principles and practices of transparency and accountability is urgently needed.  A legally enforceable and mandatory tendering process for all contracts above a certain level is essential.  Transparency in the award of contracts would be a first step.  The granting of permits and licences on the basis of merit only, is universally demanded.  The vetting of political appointees requires no great change in the law, only a commitment to transparency and accountability.  Island-wide elections must be provided for in the new Constitution.  These reforms are needed by all the Territory governments of the West Indies.

Secrecy

Attorney-General denies having a copy of the draft new constitution. All Anguilla has wanted to see the draft new Constitution prepared by Lolita Davis Richardson. We have been waiting patiently to see what is in this draft.

I have been given a copy of what I am told is the final draft. It is filled with errors so I have my doubts. It contains barely one half of the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission. It contains some proposals that Anguillians soundly rejected. It is severely defective in many respects. Mrs Richardson should be ashamed if this draft is what the Chief Minister presents to London. It needs to be cleaned up and corrected by a legal draftsman in the A-G’s Chambers.

In the 16 February issue of The Anguillian Newspaper we saw the story of Mrs Richardson officially handing over the final draft to the government of Anguilla. She handed it over to the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Finance. Those three had been part of the drafting team that spent over six months reviewing and finalizing this draft. They were well aware of what was in it.

All that was left was for the Attorney-General to publish the draft. The comments of the public would be sought. Members of the House of Assembly would debate the draft and come up with their own recommendations. The Chief Minister’s Committee would meet and hold discussions with the British Negotiating Team. Looming high over this process is the need first to publish the draft. Before anything is finalized the public needs to be given an opportunity to comment. Most people will not have anything to contribute. But, they all expect to be asked first.

February passed. March passed. April passed. May passed. June passed. We are now in July. That is nearly a half a year since the draft has been officially presented. Nothing.

On Tuesday 3 July the Chief Minister held his weekly press conference. He spoke about going this weekend to Guyana for the Caricom conference. When he returns he leaves on Monday for London. He is taking a team to discuss economic issues. He is also going to discuss the new constitution. The Anguillian Newspaper of 3 July reports what he said at page 15, column 2:

“He reported that

while in London the

delegation would

meet briefly with the

Constitutional Review

Team to discuss the

new draft constitution,

copies of which would

be circulated shortly.”

That concerns me. What business does the Chief Minister have discussing a new constitution when it has not yet been shown to us the public.

So I wrote to the Attorney-General asking for a copy. I told him I want to comment on it. He has now replied. He writes that he does not have a copy. It is still with the Chief Minister’s office. That means that not even the Attorney-General has been given a copy. Not for the public to see, anyway.

My fear is that, just like the 1982 Constitution, we in Anguilla will see it one week before it comes into effect.

I wonder how the people of Anguilla will accept being treated in that way.

In the coming days, I will make my comments on the draft that was sneaked to me.

New Constitution

Chief Minister announces he is to meet with the British to discuss new Constitution. I was not paying much attention this morning to what I was hearing on the news. Renford Kelsick was reading the news on Radio Anguilla in his own idiosyncratic way. That is why I cannot be sure that I heard right. I believe I heard him say that the Chief Minister was going to London to hold discussions with the "British constitutional committee".

They will hold discussions about what, I asked myself?

Is “discussions” not just another word for “negotiations”?

Has Lolita Richardson’s new draft constitution been published to the Anguillian public?

Has anyone in Anguilla seen a copy of this alleged new Constitution?

Are its provisions in line with the 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission?

Have the Members of the House of Assembly debated the draft before the Chief Minister commences negotiations?

I went to the government website to look. I searched the home page for a link or reference, but there was none. I searched Press Releases to see if there was anything there. As of 5:00 pm but there was nothing on the government website about the new draft Constitution.

How could the Chief Minister be going to London to discuss our new Constitution when none of us has seen what is being proposed?

Will the British permit him to discuss with them any constitutional proposals which have not yet seen the light of day in Anguilla?

Have we not been through this issue over and over before?

Please tell me I imagined it all.

Related Links:

Police Reform

Constitutions

What is acceptable to the people of Anguilla. I read the Governor’s Christmas message with interest. It is published at Anguilla LNT. My eyes zeroed in on the bit about Constitutional reform.

We all heard one of the Ministers say in the House of Assembly yesterday in the Budget Debate that the Anguilla government will be presenting a draft Constitution to the British negotiating team in January or February of next year. It is now the end of December. No one in Anguilla, other than the Chief Minister’s Committee, has seen this draft Constitution.

We heard the Hon Hubert Hughes say in the same Budget Debate that he was upset that one of the members of the Chief Minister’s Committee had demanded and was being paid to prepare the draft. I asked him what he meant. He told me that the Hon Chief Minister had told him that the member had demanded to be paid for the drafting work she had volunteered to do. He said that the Chief Minister told him that she was being paid over $11,000.00 per month. I have some difficulty believing that story. I cannot imagine that she would do such a thing. It would mean that she was taking the risk of having people falsely accuse her of delaying the process so that she could drag out her salaried tenure.

The Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission produced a Report in August 2006. This Report and its recommendations for constitutional and electoral reform were based on six months of exhaustive public exposure. There were innumerable public meetings and consultations. There were regular radio programmes and the occasional television broadcast on the topic. Members of the Commission met with Anguillians in New York, St Thomas and St Maarten to present the issues and to solicit further ideas. Meeting after meeting was held up and down the country, though some of them were not very well attended. Every person in Anguilla who had the slightest interest in constitutional reform was given the opportunity to contribute orally and in writing to the process. Hundreds of such contributions came in to the Commission’s website alone. The draft report went through revision after revision, all of which were published and widely distributed throughout the island. Since its publication, it has been available on the government website free to read on-line or to download to your computer and print out. [At least the part containing the recommendations should be read by every educated Anguillian.] The whole process was transparent and public. Contrast that with the present process, where no one has the slightest idea what is going on.

The Chief Minister commissioned one of the members of his Committee, in one of the last meetings of his Committee that I attended, to turn the Commission’s recommendations, together with the amendments agreed to by members of the House of Assembly, including the concept of full internal self-government, into a draft Constitution so that members of the Chief Minister’s Committee could see what the finished product would look like. He stated to his Committee that his intention was to take the draft to the public to get a public consensus before the British negotiating team arrived. This was important because the public were not aware of the amendments made to their recommendations as reflected in the Commission’s Report, particularly the idea of demanding from the British Government full internal self-government. His Committee’s negotiating hand would be strengthened if they could confidently assert that a majority of Anguillians had expressed support for the new constitutional proposals.

A draft Constitution has been produced for the Committee, but no member of the public has yet seen it. Has the draft taken on board the recommendations that came from the many Anguillians who contributed, or has it gone off on a tangent of its own? Have the amendments to the Report agreed by the Members of the House of Assembly been reflected in the draft, or have they been knocked to one side? If there are in the draft any major new proposed alterations to what was previously agreed, have the government ministers and supporters, who make up the present Chief Minister’s negotiating committee, accepted them?

And, now we hear on the radio that what has been produced is not a "draft", it is a "template". Not a draft, a template! It has been pointed out that a draft is something that I can present to you for your comments and suggested alterations. A draft is amenable to change based on our discussions. A template, by contrast, is something that forces or guides a process along a pre-determined line. It is a term used in engineering and in the arts to describe a device that makes the finished product conform to a design that has been pre-selected. Was this just an unfortunate use of language? Or, was the word deliberately used in all its malign sense, to give some indication of the attitude of some members of the Committee to the process of public consultation?

Will the Governor, before he departs in March next year, inform the FCO that as yet no member of the Anguillian public has the slightest idea what the Anguillian negotiating team will be presenting to them?

Will the Anguillian public accept a flurry of last-minute “public consultations” on the proposed template in the few remaining days before the British arrive as a suitable alternative to genuine public consultation on a draft Constitution?

Or will the Chief Minister stick to his word, and circulate the draft widely for public comment and input? Will he ensure that the British team does not come to Anguilla until he is certain that the majority of Anguillians have been consulted and agree with the proposals contained in the draft.

I shall observe it all with interest from the sidelines to which the Chief Minister’s abusive language has relegated me.

Heritage

Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation. Now, I hear that a new Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation Act is in circulation. A new Anguilla National Trust Act has been published to a limited number of persons.

It seems that the two of them will be bundled together and submitted to the House of Assembly by the end of September and enacted into law later this year.

As a package, they will give sweeping powers and responsibilities to the government's Department of the Environment.

We want to know, will the many valuable heritage possessions presently in private ownership be given over to this Department?

Will private museums, and efforts by civil society to promote heritage and culture, be made redundant?

Will government now do it all for us? And, we know how efficient and reliable government services are.

Is it true that the Anguilla National Trust Council will be severely truncated? Is it the plan to remove the Anguilla Archaeological and Historical Society from representation on the Council?

It is difficult for us in Anguilla to find out what is really going on in our government.

We do not have a Freedom of Information Act.

We do not have questions raised in parliament.

Other than the Dolphin case, we do not have public interest litigation.

We do not have transparent procurement practices in the public service.

We do not ask government to make available to us, the public, technical studies paid for by taxpayers.

We do not have committees of parliament investigating any issue.

We do not have commissions of inquiry.

We do not ask government to reveal how much public money is spent on fees for professional services.

Our voices are not raised against the curtailment of the people's right to information on how our money is being spent.

There is no wind of change blowing through the country.

National consciousness is not awakening. Civil society has not woken up from its slumbering.

There are no voices being raised in protest over any matter.

All this, just in comparison with the previous post on Trinidad below.

I have tried to get copies of the above Bills. I have been rebuffed. It seems that they are secret state papers. I may even have their titles incorrect. Only government favourites have access to this type of information. No independent voices are welcome in official circles. Only after government has discussed the Bills, and made their minds up about what exactly they will pass into law, will the drafts be shown to us for comment. What use is it to invite public comment when the officials have already made their minds up?

I am the secretary of the Anguilla Archaeological and Historical Society. Do you think that, just maybe, the Society might want to see a copy of what will seriously affect them? And, just maybe, give some useful input? Might we not have a claim, even, to be entitled?

No wonder no one responds to invitations to comment on draft legislation, except to occasionally explode into public protest, as happened recently with the Planning Bill and the Labour Bill.

The whole process of policy development and legislation in Anguilla is so flawed it would be laughable if it were not so serious a problem.

Good Governance

Integrity Legislation Does not Work by Itself. It is axiomatic that anti-corruption legislation is only effective when the public have had a major say in proposing and designing the solution.

“The framework must provide for the involvement of a wide range of people and interests in the formulation of prevention policies and their execution. In this way, various stakeholders become involved in the prevention process, and their own institutions — both within government and the private sector – can be mobilized in support of the (Anti–Corruption) Agency’s efforts.” (J. Pope. TI Source Book 2000 — Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrity System, Transparency International, 2000, p. 99).

Anguillians are crying out for a system that promotes good governance. Our present style of government is based on “who you know”. Who gets a scholarship, who gets free medical treatment, who gets to build too close to his boundary, who gets to vote, who gets a construction line, is determined by who you know. We do not have a culture of integrity and good governance in Anguilla. It has often been said that you can do anything you want to do in Anguilla, so long as you have the right “god father”.

We are not satisfied with that state of affairs. All Anguillians cry out that we want to see an anti-corruption culture institutionalized. We want our decision makers to be made accountable. We dream of the day when any transaction involving public money or public property will be able to withstand public scrutiny. We want all our public projects to reflect value for money. Where it does not, we want a system to quantify what value or benefit was illicitly gained and the person made to repay it to the public.

Given our limited human and financial resources, we are not asking for anything elaborate. We just want a simple, strong, transparent system that offers a guarantee of honesty and integrity in our representatives and their officials.

Any solution to our present problem should be acceptable to the society at large. No solution will work unless it can be implemented by members of the public taking action.

As a start to this process, there is the Register of Interests Bill. Our Speaker and the Members of the House of Assembly are presently looking at it. They have had a draft prepared by the Attorney-General. They have it under consideration. They may accept what the A-G drafted, or they may request changes. They are doing their best to come up with a law that will contribute to the public confidence in the behaviour of our elected representatives. Both the draft and the process they are following remain confidential. They are not shared with the public. Not surprisingly, we the public have questions about content, process and legitimacy.

The Members of the House do not seem to realise that without involving us the public at an early stage, whatever law they adopt is likely to lack legitimacy. If they do not share their work with us, the public, it will be viewed as essentially a futile piece of ineffective nation building.

By continuing to treat the draft Bill as a State secret, they are begging for allegations of indulging in window-dressing.

Will someone please publish the Bill so that we can comment on it?

Falklands

Almost There: Falklands Should Have a Constitution by Mid-year. That was the headline that caught my attention. As I read the story by Juanita Brock in SARTMA.com, I realised again how much we in the British Overseas Territories have in common. Our expectations regarding self-determination; integrity, transparency, and good government; and who and who is and who is not a “belonger”; are deeply shared. Billy Adams and his colleagues in the Cayman Islands’ People for Referendum movement struggle over these issues in their own territory. Montserrat is understandably not very organised at the moment. But, generally, our struggles are shared.

So, I was interested to read the issues that consume the Falkland Islands representatives in their present negotiations with the British over their new Constitution. There are some sticking points that they have yet to resolve. The Falkland Islanders refer to them as “anomalies”. What is the definition of who is eligible to Falkland Islands Status? What is to be the relationship between the Governor and ExCo and LegCo? Under what circumstances can the Governor go contrary to their decisions? How can we improve the functioning of our parliament? What role will locals play in the appointment of senior British officials to the Falkland Islands? Can we preserve the integrity and independence of the civil service while at the same time localizing decisions on their appointment and terms of service? Will we permit non-government persons to look into public accounts? Will we introduce muscular integrity legislation and a properly funded complaints commission? We share these concerns with the Falkland Islands and the Cayman Islands.

We in Anguilla have yet to hammer out our own stance. We need to satisfy ourselves that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. The 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission provides an indigenous hymn sheet. It is a summation or distillation of the views of those Anguillians who expressed an interest in the subject. No doubt, there are some points that were missed during the island-wide discussions that led up to it. There are, undoubtedly, some points in the Report that are even misguided. But, all in all, it represents a major achievement in formulating an advanced, locally produced, bundle of constitutional proposals. That entire process is now at risk.

There are influential nay-sayers who seek to undermine the Report. They have agendas of their own. They have no interest in promoting the proposals of the people of Anguilla as advanced by the Commission. The fear must be that they may succeed in the long run in sabotaging the Report.

But, what they cannot take away is the integrity of the process that produced the Report. It was formulated out in the open, in a transparent process, where everyone who was interested could see for themselves how the proposals were being developed and were being transformed by public discussion and intervention into the final Report. Each discussion paper was put up on the Commission’s website. Thousands of copies were printed and circulated throughout the island for the benefit of those who did not want to go on-line. Each revised edition of every discussion paper went through the same process. The Commission met with each and every organ of civil society to discuss the issues that concern the members of those bodies. The public was saturated with the discussion on constitutional issues over a six-month period.

Then, the politicians took over. Discussions now go on in secret, one year and six months after the final Report was delivered to the government. There is justifiable public suspicion over the present discussions on “full internal self-government” that are going on behind closed doors. These discussions are private, almost conspiratorial, creating heaven knows what new proposals in the “smoke-filled back-rooms” that we all despise so much.

Will these new proposals be dropped on a stunned and unsuspecting Anguillian public some day in the future?

Will any new proposals be rushed past the noses of an uncomprehending and unresponsive Anguillian public, with an announcement that we are all in agreement?

Will Anguillians who are genuinely concerned about transparency and good government be able to tell the substance from the froth and rise up in protest?

Or will it be the usual smoke screens and optical illusions that lull us into acquiescence?

Will all our efforts to secure a better system of government for Anguilla prove to have been wasted?

If we are not vigilant, then there is every chance that this is just what will happen.

Nothing More

Time for Written Submissions to the Foreign Affairs Committee has been Extended to 31 January. There has been no announcement in Anguilla. Not by government. Not in the local press. Not on a single radio station. There has been a deathly hush all over. No, it is neither a conspiracy nor fear. It is pure indifference. We Anguillians have it good. Financially, at least. We have no time for concerns about where our island is going. We are busy earning a dollar. We have not a moment to give a thought for the island our children will inherit. After all, we do not have the time to give them breakfast or a lunch package in the morning when they set off to school. We give each of them a hundred dollar bill, and tell them to buy breakfast and lunch on the road. You cannot expect more loving care from us than that!

The British FAC is making an inquiry into how our Overseas Territories are governed. They have invited written as well as oral submissions. Any one of us can write to the Committee. We can express any concern we might have about some matter of good, indifferent or bad governance. I seriously doubt any of us in Anguilla has written in. Well, we have until January 31 to do so. That is the new, extended, closing date for making written submissions to the FAC.

Compare our situation to that of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands. The TCI have a transparent system when it comes to tenders. So says Premier Michael Misick.

In TCI, there is a process in place at ministerial level for the allocation of Crown land. Parliament has a register of interests. The government is in the process of putting anti-corruption legislation in place to ensure that corruption does not rear its ugly head in that Territory. The police are within the ambit of the governor. There is an independent non-political Attorney-General responsible for prosecutions. Belonger status is given by the entire Cabinet, and not by one person. The Governor is the chairperson of Cabinet, and does not have to accept the advice of Cabinet. Our Anguillian public service and elected officials have much a greater autonomy than the government of TCI. Most of these checks and balances found in the TCI do not apply in Anguilla. Belonger status is given in Anguilla by an expert committee set up by a law. Our governor is obliged to accept the advice of our ExCo. Our parliamentarians do not have to disclose their assets to anyone. We could do with some of those TCI provisions in Anguilla.

Yet, in spite of these safeguards, accusations from TCI citizens continue to pour into the FAC about the poor level of governance in the TCI. According Mike Gapes MP, chairperson of the FAC, over one third of all written submissions received by the FAC from all the Overseas Territories put together have come from the TCI. This suggests an extraordinary degree of concern among the citizens of that Territory. Compare that with Anguilla, where there is no hint that any person has made any written submission to it. That, in spite of the many problems with governance that we all know about.

There is still time for you to change your mind. It is all our duty to be concerned about integrity in public life in Anguilla. You might try accessing the FAC website. There you will get all the information you will need on how to make a written submission to the FAC. You have until 31 January.

A report on the Overseas Territories will be produced at the end of the Inquiry, for submission to the House of Commons and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It would be sad to read in it that no one in Anguilla had anything to say.

Me? I made all my contribution when the Constitutional Commissioners delivered their report to government on 26 August 2006. I have nothing further of value to add!

Referendum

Don Mitchell is Opposed to a Referendum. Have you read this thread on the AnguillaTalk Forum? The author claims to be confused and disturbed. I do not know why. I have repeatedly made the point on radio and in print. I have given my reasons each time. To summarise, there are at least two principle objections to deciding on a new Constitution by holding a referendum in Anguilla. Excuse me if you have heard or read this before, but I want to be pellucidly clear.

One, a referendum can only be held under a law which provides the rules. In the absence of a law, there is no way to hold a referendum. A law is necessary to control how many times people vote, or where they vote. In an unregulated referendum, all the problems our Elections Act was put in place to avoid would be able to raise their heads. We have no tradition of holding referendums. Utter confusion would reign. The Swiss hold a referendum on practically every law they pass. They have been doing this for hundreds of years. It is hardly surprising it works well. You can be sure it is governed by a Swiss law. It is countered that we held a referendum before. We can hardly call the 1968 public meeting in the Webster Park, which resulted in a show of hands to adopt the revolutionary Constitution, a real referendum. The event is called a “referendum” in all the literature. That is just a polite expression. If the proposal is that we hold a meeting in the Park to show our approval of the new Constitution, I would have no objection to that. No new Constitution can be adopted without the consent of the people. It is essential that our people show their approval, in overwhelming numbers, of any proposed new Constitution. I believe this can be achieved by going village to village, house to house, if necessary. The proposers of any new Constitution must convince us that the people approve. The British have told us that is a requirement for them before they consent to any new Constitution. This is not an impossible condition to meet. The whole island is not much bigger than a village. The scandalous way in which the 1976 and 1982 Constitutions were snuck up on us must never be repeated. The great suspicion with which constitutional reform is met in some circles in Anguilla must be laid to the clandestine way in which the British and Anguillian Governments of the day pushed these reforms on us without first ensuring they had the support of the public.

Two, referendums have been tried in the West Indies before, and have a poor success rate. The most famous one was the referendum in Jamaica in 1961 on the future of the West Indies Federation. The government of Norman Manley urged the people to vote Yes on the Federation. That government was sinking in popularity, for different reasons. The Bustamante party saw an opportunity to win power by opposing the Federation. They urged their supporters to vote No, for purely political reasons. The government lost the vote. The Federation came to an end. Not that there was any real reason why the Jamaicans should have voted No. It was just that the people would have voted against whatever the government told them to vote. Ever since that, no government in the West Indies has put an issue to the electorate. If I have missed some minor referendum somewhere in the West Indies, you can be sure that it will turn out to have been proposed by an overwhelmingly popular government. A referendum, under our system, will only be put to the people by a government that has a sense that it has the massive support of the people.

How will we prevent what happened in Jamaica from happening to us in Anguilla?

Can I be blamed for suspecting that the people who propose a formal referendum on Anguilla’s new Constitution have a hidden agenda?