By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor

As Antiguans and Barbudans, we have much to be proud of as we observe 43 years of independence. We remain a stable democracy that has consistently enjoyed regular elections and a routine peaceful transfer of power. We enjoy a level of economic development that other nations may consider enviable in spite of the poverty that still exists. And we have for the most part, been a society that has remained at relative peace.

We are not haunted by political instability with violence and lawlessness determining who governs. We are not amongst the worst of nations when it comes to poverty. We are not plagued by gang warfare such as may be observed in some Caribbean and Latin American countries. And while human rights have certainly been threatened over the years by intolerance or state overreach, our situation is relatively good in comparison to much of the world.

So, the question we ought to ask ourselves this independence is not whether we have it good, so to speak, but whether we are moving forward. Or, have we allowed the stability that we have enjoyed over the years since and prior to our independence in 1981 to make us complacent about the advancement of our society?

Too often, the focus alone is on economics, and understandably so, but this narrow lens risks us forgetting about other issues. A nation such as ours, birthed from a history of human tragedy, classism, racism, poverty, and oppression, must concern itself with achieving maximum social and political progress alongside economic development.

Yes, economic development itself is a key determinant of social progress and happiness through material satisfaction, but good economic policy alone will not guarantee human rights, good governance, rule of law, national pride, and equality of opportunity. There are other things we must work on.

The focus for this discussion is on further securing our future as a liberal and democratic society by further strengthening our political system and changing our political culture. Democracies survive on the basis of the collective values of the majority of their people, and how vigorously those people put those values into practice.

We cannot presume that the constitution of 1981 and the political system as practised till now is to be the end of our democratic development. The democratic soul of our nation yearns to be nurtured in ways we too often only discuss but fail to implement. We must correct the weaknesses in our political institutions and modernise those things which are outdated.

On Abolishing the Monarchy: Nothing is more outdated than the fact that we remain a monarchy, and retain a British Monarch as the King of Antigua and Barbuda. It should be a source of national shame that our head of state is a non-resident, non-Antiguan and Barbudan, unchosen person.

This is someone who represents nothing that is Antiguan and Barbudan, who holds no sway or confidence with Antiguans and Barbudans, who does not frequent Antigua and Barbuda, and whose status as head of state is titular, since they are represented locally by a Governor-General who should tick the aforementioned boxes.

The monarchy is a symbol of Britain and an institution of Britain. It is forever a reminder of British power, British prestige, British foregone hegemony, and the splendour and wealth of the British state. We each endure the silent humiliation of paying perpetual homage to British customs and institutions and to symbols of the British Empire.

When “royals” visit, Antiguan and Barbudan officials fix their hands on their breasts and say, “It’s time to leave the monarchy behind.” But as soon as the “royals” leave, the same officials turn to the people and say, “This is not a priority at this time.”  Is the crown going to abolish itself? Referenda can be divisive and chaotic, but Antiguans and Barbudans should be given the choice to say whether or not they wish to persist in this manner or move on.

On Parliament: We must correct the faults in our Parliament which is at the heart of our representative democratic system. Our Parliament does not effectively provide oversight of the executive, and that is a problem. We must aim to reform our Parliament and bring about a further separation of executive and legislative functions so as to better guard against overreach and abuse.

As discussed in our previous editorials this week, we need a Parliament with an apolitical Speaker, more MPs to carry out Parliament’s work, a functioning Shadow Cabinet with paid public service staff, and parliamentary committees to properly oversee executive affairs on a routine basis. We need a Parliament that is regularly in session, not periodically, and we need to employ MPs, expecting that the work (and the pay) is full-time and not part-time.

We must rid ourselves of a Senate that has become nothing more than a repository for failed candidates, candidates in waiting, party faithfuls, but whose members do not fundamentally bring any further expertise or value to the legislative process. It is a body designed to serve the interest of parties to have roles to which members may be appointed, and not a body designed to represent the electorate or its interests.

On Local Government: We must reorganise our islands into governable subdivisions with a realistic framework for local government administration. In doing so, we should aim to put an end to the practice of making national Ministers of Government or MPs the first port of call when local community matters such as infrastructure, works, sanitation, public health, utilities and policing need immediate attention in our communities.

As a people, we should consider it unacceptable that we are compelled to track down Ministers and MPs for minor community tasks because we lack basic local government structures to adequately address such matters. We must demand that local authorities have budgets approved by Parliament and the Cabinet to see about their work.

On Corruption: Our integrity in public life and anti-corruption infrastructure is minimal to non-existent. No administration has seriously operationalised the integrity and anti-corruption legislation that was enacted in 2004. No administration has amended the legislation with the aim of strengthening this framework. Corruption continues to be a largely unaddressed national issue, its very existence vehemently denied by those in office.

Antigua and Barbuda requires an Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (IACC) composed of at least five credible independent members from backgrounds in law, justice, compliance, and governance. By law, and in order to add a layer of independence to the body, the majority of the members of the Commission should be recruited from outside of Antigua and Barbuda, and its Chairman should always be one such member.

The Commission should have adequate premises, resources, and staff to execute its work. These should at least include a Director responsible for overall leadership, a Special Prosecutor concerned with prosecuting offences, an Investigations Officer to lead investigations, and a Prevention Officer to design and monitor reporting and compliance measures across the public sector and raise awareness.

Any politician who argues against the need for such a robust and functional anti-corruption agency is likely a corrupt politician who engages in practices which lack integrity and is afraid of being caught. Let’s be blunt. Citizens also deserve an IACC that is empowered to prosecute corrupt practices as it relates to elections and political financing. This brings us to the topic of political finance reform and the need to pass such legislation.

On Political Financing: Elections are the bedrock of our democratic process, and money (or material), while necessary for campaigning and political messaging, ought not to be used to (a) influence voters at any time; or (b) influence elected officials, those seeking public office or their proxies. That means we must bring an end to the culture of handout politics and the national slackness surrounding political financing.

It ought to be an offence for MPs, candidates, parties or proxies to give voters any form of valuable consideration at any time. It is ridiculous that culturally, we expect and look forward to politicians going outside of state-funded programmes to fix roads, pay for our house repairs, help us pay school fees, and fund social programmes.

This turns competitive politics into a high financial investment, forcing politicians to source funds to satisfy our outrageous demands. It creates opportunities and pressures to engage in corrupt or unethical behaviour such as illicitly gaining money from state coffers or accepting large donations from people who will expect a return on their investment in the form of waivers, contracts, and favours they might otherwise not have gotten.

Political finance legislation ought to require MPs or candidates who wish to contribute funds to a specific community effort or cause to do so through a non-politically affiliated non-profit. The IACC can maintain a list of registered and approved non-profits that engage in social and charitable work. This allows the same money politicians now spend on their constituents to be spent, but through an unaffiliated charitable organisation.

Such an approach would reduce the potential for voters to be influenced by a politician’s financial contribution to their welfare. Approved non-profits would be legally barred from engaging in political activity, campaigning, candidate promotion, or political messaging of any kind, neither could they be affiliated with, or managed and directed by politicians or their proxies. It’s past time that we clean up our politics.

On Term Limits: The longer a person occupies a powerful political office, the more potential there is for them to personalise the power of the office to the determinant of newer generations of leaders and to the detriment of the people whom they serve. Power must be kept in check, and one of the ways in which many countries keep a check on the head of government is to impose a term limit.

Why not limit a Prime Minister to three terms of 15 total years in power? Those who oppose limits say they are undemocratic because they rob an electorate of the opportunity to choose the same leadership if they should wish it. In reality, it does little harm to our democracy to say that a person cannot be in charge in perpetuity. It forces parties to take succession more seriously. And it reminds national leaders that their power is transient, not permanent.

These are by no means an exhaustive list of the political changes needed to further secure the liberty and freedom enjoyed in our democracy, but they are a few important ones. Additionally, and beyond the political sphere, there are a host of other issues which need to be addressed economically and socially if we wish to achieve a fairer society where human rights are fully enjoyed by all, and where prosperity is widely experienced.

What about our economic policy and model we have pursued for decades? What can be gained from an honest analysis of its strengths and weaknesses and what opportunities are there for change that could benefit our people? How adequately have we protected the rights of communities, the elderly, children, the disabled, women, and LGBT people to be free from violence, discrimination and marginalisation?

Many take independence as a time to celebrate all that we have achieved, and take offence to those who spend time noting what we have not achieved. But it is not pessimistic to do so. It is merely honest. And we should be honest with ourselves when we observe our independence. Such honesty requires that we step back and remind ourselves how far we still have left to go, and ask whether we are actually on the path to getting there, or whether we have parked at the roadside too long taking a break. Being true to the mission of our independence project requires continuous progress, not stagnation.

About the writer:

Kieron Murdoch is an opinion contributor at antigua.news. He previously worked as a journalist and later as a radio presenter in Antigua and Barbuda for eight years, covering politics and governance especially. If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this editorial and you would like to submit a response by email to be considered for publication, please email staff@antigua.news.