FULL INTERNAL
SELF-GOVERNMENT
By Don Mitchell CBE QC,
Chairman of the Constitutional
and Electoral Reform Commission, 2006
9 September 2007
Dame Dr Bernice Lake QC and
other members of the Concerned Citizens
Group on the Chief Minister’s Negotiating Team have raised this issue
of “going for full internal self-government”.
They have argued that it is fundamental to their involvement with the
Team. Members of the Team have shown a
willingness to embrace the proposal. I have objected to the proposal as a mere
cliché, meaning it is not really helpful to our present exercise for
constitutional advance. On further
reflection, I realize my objection is more fundamental. I want to set out some of my thoughts here.
Full
internal self-government in a British colonial context means having the people
be responsible for all aspects of their government, save, traditionally, for
security, defence, and diplomatic relations.
This was the constitutional relationship that we had when we were part
of the Associated State of St Kitts,
Nevis and Anguilla in 1967.
Members
of the CCG have argued that we cannot go to the British to negotiate unless we
have settled the fundamental issue of the type of relationship that we want to
have with them. They have suggested that
the issue must be spelled out clearly first.
Only then can we sensibly begin to design a Constitution that reflects
our true needs. They have urged that,
short of independence, the only realistic constitutional situation for Anguilla
is full internal self-government[1]. Their position, if I can paraphrase, is that
the piecemeal approach in the Constitutional
Commission's Report is flawed and needs to be
abandoned.
The
Hon Chief Minister was motivated to postpone
the planned discussions with the British.
Not all of us were happy with this development. Some of us have major reservations about the
postponement.
Some
members of the team have argued that we cannot begin to draft a new
Constitution providing for full internal self-government unless we first put to
the people the choices they have. Do
they want to remain a full British Colony?
Are they ready for full independence?
Or, would they want to advance to an intermediate stage of full internal
self-government? This, for shorthand,
can be described as the Hon Eddie Baird’s
position.
Others
on the Team have argued that since the government and the opposition are in
favour of full internal self-government, and since the people have in the views
reflected in the Constitutional Commission’s Report essentially expressed
themselves in favour of this advance, it is appropriate that we draft a
suitable Constitution and put it to the people in a referendum. This can be described
as the Hon Hubert Hughes’ and the Hon Chief Minister’s position[2].
Others
have urged that we cannot proceed further unless we see separate draft
Constitutions for Anguilla demonstrating all the features of the various
options. Only then will people begin to
appreciate what the options are. This
can be described as the Rev Dr Niles’
position.
All
these different suggestions involve postponing the advances that were
recommended by the Constitutional Commission’s Report. This postponement may last for years. This delay is not acceptable to some of us.
There
are major problems with this idea of delaying constitutional advance until we
have got full internal self-government enshrined in our Constitution. There is no doubt that Anguillians are ready
for full internal self-government. That
is what the Commission found. That is
reflected in the Commission’s Report.
What the Commission also found was that this advance will only be
acceptable to the people if it is balanced by a complete plank of checks and
balances on the powers of the government.
This condition or reservation was deep-seated and widespread, and came
up in one forum of discussion after another.
Full
internal self-government does not just mean more power in the hands of Ministers. It also means that the people and their
democratic institutions share power with Ministers in exchange for the British
giving up their previous supervisory powers.
It means that we will no longer rely on the energy and courage of an
individual Governor to restrain Ministers.
We have learned to our cost that does not work. We will replace that failed system by an
improved one of increased accountability and transparency on the part of
Ministers.
Full
internal self-government does not only mean excluding the Governor from
Cabinet. It also means
- Ministers having to expose their workings more to the people;
- an independent Civil Service Commission, and Police Service Commission taking the place of the Governor’s discretion;
- having a Freedom of Information Act so people can find out more easily what is going on;
- putting in place anti-corruption and integrity legislation and institutions;
- having an Ombudsman to help the people get justice when the administration behaves improperly;
- making Cabinet meetings generally open to the public;
- prohibiting sale of government land without a resolution of the House of Assembly;
- making the Planning Committee independent of Ministerial over-rule, but with provisions for the citizen to appeal unreasonable decisions to an appeal tribunal and to the court;
- entrenching the grant of work permits and Belonger certificates in professional boards and tribunals, and not subject to political influence.
Without
these checks and balances, full internal self-government could result in
increased abuse of the people. It has
done so nearly everywhere else.
What
is required is a trial period of effective internal self-government. The Constitutional
and Electoral Reform Commission Report recommends a series of reforms that
place practical self-government in the hands of Ministers and other
Commissions and institutions. If it
works for a period of time, then the people will almost certainly have
developed sufficient confidence in our politicians. They may then be ready to entrust them with the
responsibilities that go with full internal self-government.
It
is not that Anguillians are not ready for full internal self-government. On the contrary, Anguillians consider that it
is long overdue. It is that the people
are not sure that Ministers are ready for the responsibilities that full
internal self-government will bring.
Anguillians have more reason to fear political abuse from their own
Ministers than from British neglect or abuse.
That is one of the reasons why neither the people nor the Commissioners
advanced the idea of proposing “full internal self-government” in the
Report. The Commissioners were satisfied
that a majority of Anguillians want a reduction in the powers of the Governor,
with more powers and responsibilities given to Ministers, but with checks and
balances in place to ensure those powers are not abused.
This
last can be called Rev Cecil Weekes’
and Don Mitchell’s position.
[1] It is fundamental to their
argument that the British have promised, as seen in the contents of the
Anguilla Act of 1981, that Anguilla would be encouraged to advance to full
internal self-government. Indeed, it is
interesting that in its glossary
of terms of terms relating to the islands of the Commonwealth
Caribbean, the Library of Congress records that in the view of the Library at
least, Anguilla was, as late as the year 1987, still an Associated State.
