THE PAN-AFRIKAN LIBERATOR

The National Youth Council held an open forum on Montserrat's colonial status at Harmony House on Tuesday, November 29, 1994.

The invited speakers were Dr Howard Fergus, Resident Tutor, University of the West Indies, Historian, Speaker of the House and Acting governor; Kenneth Allen, Q.C., Labour Union Organiser, former politician, and 2nd Nominated Member to the Legislative Council; and Claude Hogan of the government informa- tion unit.

Each speaker presented a different perspective on the issue but all left no doubt that they were supporting Independence for Montserrat.

A lively discussion followed the speakers' presentations. Participating members of the audience included:

Miss Cherrie Taylor, Social Commentator; Mrs Vereen Thomas Woolcock, former Politician and General Secretary of the Montserrat Allied Workers Union; Mr Peter B. White, Teacher, former Headmaster of the Montserrat Secondary School, head of the LDA, Businessman and Politician; Mr Bill James, social activist and member of the Labour Tribunal; Mr John Dublin, former Legislative Council Member, former Minister of Education, Businessman and Politician; and Mr Chedmond Browne, Union Leader, Publisher of The Pan-Afrikan Liberator, Teacher, Lecturer and Politician.

Each of these individuals made it clear that they supported Independence (self-determination) for Montserrat and saw it as necessary and inevitable.

While "The Man from Baker Hill," John Allen, did not speak at the forum, he stated his position, which was a response to what he heard at the Forum, in the December 9, 1994 edition of The Montserrat Reporter.

Radio Antilles and The Montserrat News gave listeners and readers an account of the forum that allowed those who did not attend to recognise that the momentum for independence had moved into another sector of the society.

Radio Montserrat and Local Access TV, on the other hand, appeared to have attended another event, paying little attention to the significance of what was being said or who was saying it.

They treated the forum as though it was the same old humdrum that we have become accustomed to every few years since the PDP administration of P. Austin Bramble.

The result was that their excerpts, taken out of context, had negative implications.

The reality was that no one who attended the session spoke against the need to move towards Independence or the inevitability of Independence.

Special mention was made of The Pan- Afrikan Liberator and the role that it has played and continues to play on the road to Independence.

In the words of Dr Fergus, "The Pan-Afrikan Liberator is the only newspaper in Montserrat that has actively canvassed the country for Independence."

Many of the speakers from the audience used documentation presented in past issues of The Pan-Afrikan Liberator to highlight their contributions and generally commented on the consistent drive that the staff of The P-AL has maintained in its dissemination of information and awareness preparation for Independence.

The forum was lively and spontaneous. Mr Peter White played a dominant role and would not allow the pie in the sky concept of economic independence before political independence to take root.

This theory has been around for as many years as colonies have been trying to break away from their colonial masters.

It has served the british and their lackeys well as they use it as a ploy to slow down Independence movements and control time elements.

It is now used in Montserrat by those who can no longer argue against Independence but wish to create impossible barriers against the achievement of Independence.

The consensus was that there could be no form of Independence, if we did not have the political freedom to determine for ourselves what was best for us, and the political will to carry out that decision without british interference.

Our present "constitution" does not allow this.

The role of politicians and their contribution towards Independence was discussed.

Politicians, it was noted, were notorious for ignoring the issue. All of them appeared to be afraid to make it a platform issue and Kenneth Allen wondered when the politicians would put it on their platform agenda.

Editor's Note: Mr Allen seems to have missed Chedmond Browne's political agenda on Independence for Montserrat as published in the M/Rat News, 3rd October 1991.

Mr John Dublin responded to the query, by stating that he would not align himself with anyone in the 1996 elections who was not committed to making Independence for Montserrat a platform issue.

Mr Allen then noted that Mr Browne as a politician has been doing an excellent job on the Independence issue and should stand a good chance of taking the Plymouth constituency if the Independence momentum continues.

Mr Peter White then stated that he too as a politician is committed to making Independence/Self-Determination a platform issue. The 3 active politicians present left no doubt as to their position on the issue.

For some time now I have looked at, studied, pondered and agonized over our system of government.

I have felt for a long time that the system is inappropriate and serves to divide rather than unite our people in the business of running our country for our own benefit.

Many people feel that our present system is functional. Most don't even think about it at all, preferring to feel that the British put it together, so it must be ok.

How many have thought that the British did put it together, but with their interests in mind?

How many people have thought that this system of government was put in place after careful thought and study, as to the culture and needs of the people it is intended to serve?

Given our history, perhaps that might have been much to ask in the fifty's.

But, we were presented with a constitution act written that was promulgated in 1989.

It is not the practice, nor the inclination of most of us, to question the fundamental things which govern our lives and existence on this island.

Instead we delve into the superficial. We question why a minister needs to make a trip to represent us abroad if he is not bringing back a pocket full of dollars to share.

Is that the reason for electing a representative?

We have been brought up on a system that encourages paternalism. There must be something in it for me personally or I am not going to vote.

There is no sense that we are giving some one the authority to make a decision for me in my best interest as he or she sees it.

We see a representative who will make sure that a stand pipe goes up on the corner so we can wash our clothes, or give us some free land to do what we wish.

Not that these things aren't important, but they are not fundamental to our survival.

To get these things done requires a decision, but the ability to carry out those decisions, the means to do so and the ultimate consequences of them, have not been of general concern.

We have often been likened to children with "Mother England" looking after us.

Like children, we have been allowed to "do our own thing" for some time as long as we stay within bounds.

But when it comes to the nitty gritty, who does make the decisions?

Like some households I know, when it comes down to it, you do as I say or you find your own roost. Do you understand what I'm saying?

We have a system designed by "Mother England" in "Mother England's" own interest not ours.

We do as we like just as long as we do not infringe on any of the rules laid down, as long as we do not embarrass her, as long as we do not thwart her plans, as long as we are good little children and do not want too much.

How can you expect to live under my roof and I have to drive an Austin mini and you want to drive a Mercedes.

If you can afford a Mercedes you don't need me or my help. If you need me you drive what I drive or maybe a Rootes, nothing better.

Now I am not condoning living beyond our means, I am simply pointing out the direction in which we have been heading and feel that we have a right to go that way and that "Mother England" has to support it.

We totally ignore the fact that we are still a colony and that the system of government we are obliged to follow does not give us the right to such luxury.

(Editor's Note)Read the Montserrat Constitution Order 1989.

What we need to do is devise a system which will take into account our peculiar vulnerabilities, our peculiar problems, our peculiar circumstances and our peculiar culture. We are what we are.

We can change but that takes time. We need a system which meets our needs now and will allow us to grow, change gradually to what we perceive is our future.

We need a system which allows us to determine our own role.

We must be the ones who set our own boundaries, make our own rules, develop our own goals, and we if we do something embarrassing let it be us who is embarrassed.

In short we must be a self-determined people. This does not mean what some people term independence. In today's world, that term in its traditional sense, has no meaning.

What it should mean and what self-determined does mean is the ability to make ones own choices for good or for bad.

If it means leaning on someone, we have a choice as to who we lean on and more specifically why.

This is not about the British and whether I dislike them and want to get rid of them. This is about us and what we ought to be doing for us and why.

We ought to be doing for ourselves, not depending on others to do for us. We do need help but we do not need patronizing.

We need to understand that if we intend to progress as a people together, we can not leave it up to others to chart the course and we need to place ourselves in the position to do that now.

Everything starts with how we perceive the way we are governed and how we perceive ourselves.

The structure which we have been given to work with is much at odds with what we think we have.

We think that the Chief Minister makes all the decisions and it is only his will that carries the day. Anything that goes wrong it is his fault.

He must take the responsibility. But is this really so? Our "Constitution" says something different. In practice is this so?

I have reached the conclusion that in successive governments the Chief Ministers have reached the conclusion that if they will be held responsible anyway they will make the decisions by themselves and to hell with the consequences.

To the extent that they acted in this way is the extent to which they have been accused of being dictatorial.

The extent to which they have been able to get away with it, is the extent that the perception increases that this is the way the system ought to operate.

The extent that this perception is widely held causes a government to be misjudged by the people who function in it and the people who observe it.

The extent to which it is misjudged is the extent of the dissatisfaction which develops with the government.

If this is the way we see the government functions and our expectations ride on this view, then we ought to have a government that works that way.

We must, therefore, provide the tools that make the system function as we perceive it does function, but ensure that the safeguards are there to make the decision-makers accountable to the people who put them there.

Is this a radical thought? Then why is it that so many of us are willing to accept without question the system under which we are governed?

Why are we so willing to opt for the easy solution and blame the first person to come along for all our ills?

This is not to say that those who are singled out are blameless. But they must function within certain constraints and those constraints certainly influence their actions.

If these people are given the right environment in which to work and they still cannot fulfil their mission to our satisfaction then we know that we have chosen incorrectly.

However when they are forced to operate in an environment that is not designed to produce or cultivate the type of results we wish, how do you know what the problem is?

I know, we want results regardless, and now.

I say we need to take a long hard look at what we have, where we are, where we want to go and how we are going to get there.

We know things are not right. So, let us put them right.

First we need a change in our system of government, its organization and structure and we need to do that now.

If the environment is not right we are not going to get anywhere. If there are any constraints to making this fundamental change then the first order of business is to remove those constraints.

We need a national debate on the issues that I have raised. I know, the current threat to our livelihood seems a lot more immediate than this.

But the point is, in order to do the things we ought to do to improve our bread and butter situation, we have got to make this change.

If your car engine stops working no matter how much you tell yourself that you need to get to the airport from war memorial, sitting in the car and yelling for a new mechanic as soon as one opens the hood is not going to get you there.

You have got to make sure that the engine is fixed, as long as that takes, or get into another vehicle that works.

We need to have the patience to do first things first and as best we could.

What kind of changes are necessary? We need a system that empowers our representatives to make all the decisions necessary in our best interest as they see it.

We need a system that enables them to carry out those decisions to the best of their ability with the resources that are available.

We need to accept the consequences of our decisions and a system which makes the decision makers accountable to the electorate.

We need a system which impels the building of a consensus for the government to function but does not demand the forging of formal alliances.

We need a system that supports the striving for excellence, not the rewarding of mediocrity.

We need a system that encourages growth, demands responsibility and promotes initiative.

Any structure that's developed must speak to the elements outlined above.

You may feel that there are more but certainly no fewer.

Anything less and we have defeated the purpose of making the change.

Some people may wish to argue and do, that the present system meets these needs because the British allows it, but, we have not exercised it because the right people have not been in place to implement it.

Haven't you heard this or some version thereof?

The fact that the British must "allow it" is the problem. What if they don't "allow it"? Besides having functioned within this system, the people with experience will already know before hand what they will allow and what they won't and act accordingly.

We don't need this. We ought not to have this hanging over our heads.

We should be making decisions without having to second guess what is acceptable by someone else before we decide that's what we want.

It is agreed that we may need to modify our position based on our ability to implement it, for what ever reasons, but let that be our decision again.

However, we need to look at our decisionmaking structure. How it is composed, how it is organized and how it should function.

We already have an idea of how we think it functions, and as I said earlier, that is not how it was designed.

What we need is to design something that works the way we think it ought to. Since we are making a change lets make it right.

If it is the Chief we expect to make the decisions and be responsible for them, let's make it so.

The President of the United States makes the decisions and he is held responsible for them.

There is no collective responsibility in his cabinet. He does not have to please his Secretary of Agriculture in order to stay in business.

But, he, not his party, not his cabinet, he, the President, must please the people in four years or he is out.

If it is something like that we think it is or it ought to be, let's have it.

But we all recognize that one man cannot do it all alone, nor do we wish to have one man have it all his way.

We know that. So we need to ensure that when a decision is made, that it must be reviewed by competent people who represent our interests, whose responsibilities are not as wide but whose commitment is to the people as well.

Who reviews those decisions? In the United States the President appoints a cabinet from where ever he chooses upon approval by the Senate.

They review all decisions both legislative and executive but they are his men. No consensus is needed at this point.

The congress reviews only the legislative and a few executive decisions (they may or may not be on his side). In these instances, he must build a consensus.

Do we want consensus all the time or some of the time? I say, given our size and our recent experiences, we need to know where every man stands. Let's get consensus on everything.

In that event, let our cabinet be selected from those who have been elected by the people. Some may then say we sacrifice competence in this event, but I say we increase accountability.

To address the area of competence let us allow each cabinet member the right to appoint a cabinet secretary of his or her choosing to be the administrative head of his or her portfolio and to implement policy.

Scrap the Permanent Secretaries. Ensure that the department heads are what they ought to be, competent to oversee their area of specialty.

However, given our present structure, our choice of possible cabinet members and the ability to choose a few with the ability to arrive at a viable consensus is limited.

We need more representatives. More representatives mean more sensitivity to the desires of the various interests in our society.

Let us not fool ourselves that because our population is small that we do not have the range of special interests that need to be served as the larger communities.

The interests and needs are there, the numbers are just smaller but, nevertheless, just as important.

I suggest a single house of representatives with nineteen members. Ten based on geographical divisions as our present constituencies are based. The other nine selected on an island wide basis.

Those selected on a geographical basis will ensure that the peculiar interests of an area will be addressed and those on an island-wide basis will ensure that the issues, of importance on a wider scale, do not get lost because of insularity.

I can hear the concerns expressed about the large numbers and the consequent cost of maintaining them, but I am not speaking of nineteen ministers, only representatives.

And since their involvement does not require full time employment, except for those chosen as cabinet ministers, their emoluments could be suitably determined.

Now to a most important question, how do we choose our Chief Minister? I have often heard it expressed that we should elect him or her directly.

Is this not the consensus we wish? He/She will not be Salem's choice or Kinsale's choice but our choice.

Have we dealt with all the elements yet? No, we have not dealt with the matter of implementing the decisions and the efficiency and effectiveness thereof. Let's deal with the Civil Service structure.

Some people see the Civil Service as independent of the government and how it functions.

The service is that part of the structure that does the day-to-day business of government.

It must be responsive to policies of the government of the day but it is also seen as a safeguard against abuse, ignorance and incompetence on behalf of those elected to represent the people. A very hard task.

But if the Civil Service is seen as the body who is charged with the efficient and effective implementation of policy by competent professionals, the task becomes easier to deal with.

We are not discussing the interpretation of policy directives or the making of policy.

We cannot and must not ask the civil servant to decide if a school should be closed in St. Peters or not.

The civil servant should be asked to provide the information, the arguments for and against the closing of the school.

Let the representatives decide. After the decision, no matter which way it goes, the civil servant must make it work.

If the civil servant requires additional resources to deal with the decision made, it should have been made clear before the decision was taken, that this would be a consequence of that decision.

The responsibility of providing those resources lies with those who made the decision.

Those who make decisions must take the responsibility for them.

When our representatives make decisions on our behalf we must accept responsibility for them. We decided to put them there.

The Civil Service however must be structured to do its job. We must not expect a car to fly.

It was not designed for that. Some people have tried it and succeeded for a short time, usually with disastrous consequences.

We have heard talk about restructuring the civil service, but it would appear that the object of the exercise is to trim its size, as measured by the amount spent on personal emoluments as compared to the amount spent on goods and services provided.

One way of measuring efficiency. But, when it is constrained by a ceiling, how can anyone determine, before setting goals and priorities, what percentage of that ceiling must be assigned to what area?

And how can someone else determine, what our goals and our priorities should be?

Taking our size into consideration and the resources available to us, it is evident that we must devise a system that maximizes the talents, expertise and experience of all the people we have at minimum cost.

I think a process oriented approach to the business of managing and implementing government policy is the best approach.

Each objective ought to be analyzed to determine the resources required to accomplish it.

Then these resources are assigned regardless of where they reside. The only constraints being their availability based on their priority. Priorities are a policy matter.

The Civil Service should inform the setting of priorities not make them.

I think a culture of change and a need for change as a desirable effect of growth needs to be established within the Civil Service. Without the concept, that improvement and growth is necessary and change is therefore inevitable, we are doomed.

But change must bring about the accomplishment of the goals we set.

The processes we develop to accomplish these goals must be the focus of the New Civil Service we devise.

If this view is taken, then the measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil service will be determined by how well our desires as a people are interpreted in policies and decisions made by the people we elect.

The size and percentage of the recurrent budget that personal emoluments take will be determined by how well we design our management system.

Having designed our system then we can talk numbers and what is a good ratio.

What would process orientation really mean in practical terms? It could mean the maximum use of the resources we have at hand.

It does mean that the boundaries associated with the department structures as they exist today would no longer preclude the use of manpower and financial resources where they are most needed.

The top management must seek ways and means to plan and implement on a country wide basis and not simply on a ministerial level. Everybody must know what everybody else is doing and why and how.

And here I see a definitive roll for collective responsibility. All must contribute to the success of the whole.

I have called for a national debate on this issue because I think it is necessary to start at the foundation to build a sound structure. We need more than a paint job and no one can do the job required but us.

The move towards Independence (Self- Determination) and the continued infra- structural development of the airport in Montserrat are linked.

The airport project has been discussed by every administration since 1970. Studies have been carried out, plans have been drawn and funds have been allocated.

The final decision, however, despite all the flowery phrases surrounding our governmental control-system is at the discretion of the administering power.

The policy- makers who determine the future of Montserrat, have maintained from the beginning that the airport in Montserrat was not a priority.

Any local administration that chooses to make it a priority could only do so at the expense of some other project???.

The consistency of the administering power's position has not changed for the last 25 years, despite the constant change in british administrators.

(EDITOR'E NOTE) (Read UN report A/AC.109/722, A/AC.109/1188, The Pan-Afrikan Liberator Vol.1 #2 Sep. 1992)

These british officials, over the years, have all been well-trained in the rote repetition of trite phrases that state british position and policy.

Once again the airport is on the agenda. Once again british resistance and constraints have been put in place.

The airport and its expansion are closer to becoming a reality now, than at any other point in its torturous history.

Regardless of the british position, concerned Montserratians should now be paying closer attention and seeking relevant answers to some questions.

It is imperative that a few pointed questions be asked regarding the re-development of the Blackburne Airport.

The existing infrastructure at Blackburne was funded under the Canadian Caribbean Airports project and a B.D.D. grant. Its present maximum arrival/departure passenger capacity is 60.

Question 1: Is this capacity adequate for our projected development needs?

In 1992 it was recommended by Alexander Gibbs, et al, that the runway at Blackburne should be realigned by approximate 15 and extended to a length of 1400 metres with a further extension capability to 2080 metres.

According to Gibbs, the 1400 metre extension would facilitate immediate operation of the larger regional turbo prop aircraft (such as the LIAT Dash-8, the American Eagle).

If the runway were to be extended to 2080 metres then the larger short-haul jets can be accommodated.

Question 2: At this 15 realignment, will the approach angle be suitable (safe) for the landing of those smaller aircraft which represent the backbone of Montserrat's air transport service?

Proponents of the airport re- development project advise that the realignment and lengthening of the runway will facilitate the making of San Juan, Puerto Rico as the main point of access to Montserrat for passengers from continental USA.

The intention is to replace Antigua which presently is the access point. The desire for change from Antigua stems from widespread dissatisfaction with LIAT'S poor service in terms of punctuality, an inefficient reservation system, etc.

Question 3: We are making allowances for the larger turbo-prop type aircraft, but will the volume of traffic into Montserrat throughout the year be able to justify year- round, daily service by American Eagle, a privatised LIAT, or Carib Express?

In a privatised LIAT, profitability will be the major factor. It is economic considerations that will determine how frequently Montserrat is serviced.

American Eagle has already indicated (in 1993) that they "would need to form a view on projected passenger traffic levels to Montserrat from San Juan."

They have also said, "we would need to operate at least three (3) scheduled flights per day [throughout the year] in order to justify the investment."

The present average volume into Montserrat daily is low; and based on the American Eagle traffic requirements, there would need to be a significant increase in passengers per day throughout the year from continental USA.

Can we realistically guarantee this in the short- to medium- term?

To date, all the promotional efforts and policy statements on the Montserrat Tourism product indicate clearly that retiree and ecotourism are desired.

Both are very different from so-called mass-tourism which characteristically involves large volumes of persons, quick turnover (frequent movement of persons in and out of the island).

Although we can recognise the social and environmental advantages of targeting a certain type of tourist, it is important that we ask another question.

Question 4: Can the airport be sustained by such an exclusive, preferred market? Since we do not want a large influx of foreigners, would a few Montserratians then have to bear the brunt of the loan repayment burden?

Now increased demand for stay-over tourism in the Eastern Caribbean is projected to come from Europe, which leads me to another question.

Question 5: How then do we justify shifting to San Juan as a major access point when at present, Antigua receives three (3) times more traffic from Europe than from San Juan?

Again, airport project proponents state there will be a 10% growth in visitor arrivals in the year after the airport is built. Is this realistic given that there is very little complementary development, and that our present growth rate is 2%? In fact, we would need to build 200 hotel rooms per year starting 1995.

The results of economic appraisal give rates of return on the airport project that are marginal.

It must also be noted that these rates were derived under the assumption that government will receive 75% of the money for the project as a grant.

Question 7: Suppose the Montserrat Government is not able to get this percentage free from loan obligations, what then?

In conclusion, there clearly needs to be more public debate/discussion on the issue. This project as it stands may seem attractive, but there are many underlying but critical implications.

1.Montserratians need to be aware of the potential fiscal burdens such a project entails.

2.A re-assessment of the airport project may well require us to re-assess our tourism product. Will we need, for instance, to consider some levels of mass tourism?

3.Above all else, the Montserrat government and the public at large need to consider in the greatest detail the proposed realignment angle for the runway.

Just as individuals, we welcome 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinions from our doctors, so too, we must seek several expert objective views about this proposed re-alignment.

Haste to settle on a single proposal can spell disaster. We must be always mindful of wind shear, etc.

The safety of passengers must be paramount. I call, therefore, for maximum openness and honesty on every aspect of this project.

The Hong kong government yesterday defied London and said that 3.5 million people here should be granted full British citizenship.

It supported a motion in the Legislative Council, Hong Kong's 60 member parliament, calling for the right of abode in Britain for all those in the colony with British passports.

The motion was proposed by the independent council member, Emily Lau, who observed:

"Britain is probably the only country in the world which does not allow the right of entry to its own nationals."

She was referring to the category of British dependent Territory citizenship stipulating that those carrying such passports, which closely resemble those of full British subjects, are denied right of abode in Britain.

Ms. Lau described the refusal by successive British governments and parliaments to grant full rights of abode to this category of British subjects, because it would flood the country with Chinese, as "hysteria worthy of Enoch Powell and pathological fear of non-white immigra- tion".

She said that thousands of people from Macau who have full Portuguese citizenship can enter Britain freely.

Alistair Asprey, the Secretary of State for Security in Hong Kong, supported Ms. Lau's motion on the grounds that it will encourage people to remain in Hong Kong.

Mr. Asprey noted that the Hong Kong government took this position "in the latter half of 1989" after the Tiananmen killings, when senior officials travelled to London to ask Margaret Thatcher to grant 3.5 million people right of abode.

It is known that Mrs. Thatcher originally agreed, but Sir Percy Cradock, her adviser on Chinese affairs, persuaded her to change her mind, on the ground that granting right of abode would be seen by Peking as an act of distrust.

Mr. Asprey conceded that although during "recent days" the Hong Kong government has again pressed Whitehall to reconsider "it would be unrealistic to expect a change of policy at this stage".

THE TIMES (London)Nov.1994

Editors Note. The british immigration policy for Hong Kong also applies to Montserrat and the remaining Carribean colonies.