Branville McCartney and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) are really creations of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM) ...If the PLP and FNM had offerings that wowed the people, McCartney would never have created his party ...But because he senses a national dissatisfaction, he pushes forward

So much passion about Branville McCartney

thenassauguardian editorial

It is always interesting reading your letters and commentary – especially the pieces written on politics.  Lately much has been sent in about Branville McCartney, the Member of Parliament for Bamboo Town and leader of the Democratic National Alliance.  Some of it has been published; some will be published.

The common theme from the well-written pieces, to the average pieces is that there is great passion about McCartney.  Some argue aggressively that he is ‘the One’ who will lead The Bahamas to prosperity; some argue that he is an arrogant upstart, who is not prepared to be prime minister.

Two of our columnists of late have dedicated significant space to McCartney.  Dr. Ian Strachan, an English professor and political commentator, dissected McCartney and the DNA in recent pieces in our National Review section.  Simon, the writer of the Tuesday column Front Porch, who defends Hubert Ingraham and all things FNM all the time, waged war against the green party in successive columns in recent months.

Beyond those who send thoughts, or publish in the paper, there is obvious interest in the community about this politician.  People always ask our reporters and editors, “What do you think about Bran?  You think he has a chance?”

The attack on McCartney in the House of Assembly last week by South Abaco MP (FNM) Edison Key helped lift McCartney’s profile as much as it raised questions about his conduct as a minister in Ingraham’s Cabinet.  Key alleged that McCartney petitioned him for work for his law firm while he was a minister.  McCartney rejected the allegation.

What was most interesting is that McCartney was quite aggressive as he argued his innocence in the House.  A longtime political observer, who was there during the incident, said McCartney said at one point, “Old man, sit down.”

Whether he said this or not, is beside the point. That comment, perfectly, encapsulates the fascination with McCartney.

Bahamians want change to a political order that no longer inspires them.  Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and Opposition Leader Perry Christie are historic figures.  Few men going forward will ever hold elected seats in Parliament for more than 30 years and be prime minister.  Both men have done so.

The problem is that at the latter part of your career, when you have served for so long, people have already seen the best of you.  And in times of crisis or malaise, those same people wonder if someone else, someone younger, someone with new and different ideas, might not be better suited to take a try at fixing common problems.

We are not arguing that McCartney is ‘the One’.  He has much to prove in the months to come.  It would be a major achievement if his party wins a few seats.

But, we must acknowledge that many Bahamians have not been satisfied with the direction the country has been heading in for many years, spanning PLP and FNM administrations.

McCartney and the DNA are really creations of the PLP and FNM.  If the PLP and FNM had offerings that wowed the people, McCartney would never have created his party.  But because he senses a national dissatisfaction, he pushes forward.

What he should not be attacked for is offering for higher public service.  More young Bahamians, educated and trained, need to step forward to help their country.  The tone of some of McCartney’s critics is excessive.  To sum it up, they appear angry that he would dare challenge the established order.

We live in a democracy – the more choice for the electorate the better.  Competition should help refine the two older parties.  The green party is no threat to our country.  Whether it survives or not after the general election, it is just another part of our political evolution.

Oct 26, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The public is fed up ...In cases where bail can be given, they want it given ...Of course, with the amended bail act magistrates can no longer grant bail in serious cases, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, attempted rape and the various offences involving firearms

Magistrates starting to open their eyes

tribune242 editorial


AT LAST, public exasperation at the lenient manner in which cases are handled -- especially for accused with well established criminal records -- is getting through to the magistrates.

In the delay of the trial of two men and a woman charged in a major gun and ammunition seizure case yesterday, the magistrate told the prosecution to make certain that defence lawyers were given all relevant statements. She then set a date for trial and warned defence counsel to be prepared to go ahead on that date so as not to waste the court's time. Also, she did not want the public to be given a negative impression of justice in the court system.

Unfortunately, the public already has that negative impression. It is now up to the courts to dispel it, not only by efficiently handling cases, but by more frequent denial of bail.

The public's criticism does not just rest with the magistrates. What many of our letter writers say about some defence lawyers is unprintable.

Bahamians know that many of the court delays are from the Outer Bar, and the pleading for leniency for hardened criminals comes from the mouths of many of those pleading attorneys.

The public is fed up. In cases where bail can be given, they want it given. Of course, with the amended bail act magistrates can no longer grant bail in serious cases, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, attempted rape and the various offences involving firearms.

In these cases, magistrates have to take into consideration the need to protect the safety of the public and public order. The need to protect the safety of the victim of the offence and the nature and seriousness of the offence and the nature and strength of the evidence against the defendant.

Another -- and it appears recent -- element that seems to be slipping into our court system is a defendant's attempt to select his judge.

Last week, the Appeal's Court turned down such an appeal calling it "forum shopping".

Accused of drug conspiracy, the defendant tried to get his case moved from the court of Deputy Chief Magistrate Carolita Bethel, by claiming bias.

The higher court found no bias against him on the part of the magistrate, but did find an attempt by him to "forum shop". This is something that has to be stopped in its tracks before it gets out of hand.

In his contribution to the House debate on the crime bills, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell challenged government to live up to its promise of reducing crime through criminal justice legislation.

However, when it came to the witness protection bill, Mr Mitchell complained that it was unconstitutional to deny the accused the right to know his accuser.

It would seem that Mr Mitchell not only wants his cake, but he wants to eat it too. Prime Minister Ingraham described what would happen to our judicial system if essential witnesses were not protected.

Last week, the cruel death of a man -- a case of mistaken identity -- should have sealed Mr Mitchell's lips forever on the issue of witness protection.

The dead man was a case of mistaken identity. The bullet was intended for a witness in a murder case. This was the second time that his assailants had missed him. He is now in the witness protection programme.

In the House, Mr Ingraham explained the need for such protection.

"It is the duty of every citizen," he said, "to report the commission of a crime, to cooperate with the police, to give evidence in court if they are called upon to do so, to assist the police in the execution of their duties and to go to the Supreme Court to serve as a juror.

"In order for a citizen to carry out that duty the citizen must feel safe, must feel and indeed know that they are going to be safe not going to be intimidated, not going to be hanged, that their family are going to be safe, and unmolested because they are simply doing their civic duty.

"Whenever that can't happen, the citizen is not inclined to cooperate, is unwilling to cooperate; if he's unwilling to cooperate we are unable to have prosecutions, we have a state that cannot enforce its laws and protect its citizens from criminal activity."

We recall the outcry when airline passengers resented being searched before boarding an aircraft -- it was unconstitutional and demeaning many said.

Today when faced with either giving up that constitutional right or being blown to smithereens, they stand in long lines, meekly taking off their belts and shoes, emptying their pockets and taking their turn walking through a metal detector. In choosing between their constitutional right and their life, they chose Life.

Today, that is what Bahamians will have to accept with the witness protection programme. In some instances, accused persons will have to give up their right to know the person giving evidence against them, in return for the witness's evidence and to make if possible for government to grant Mr Mitchell and all Bahamians' wish to reduce crime through the criminal justice system.

October 25, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Policymakers and other interested parties would need to closely monitor the national debt situation to ensure that the nation’s economy remains healthy and that our living standards are not threatened by excessive public sector debt

The national debt

thenassauguardian editorial

Governments, international agencies, rating agencies and most businessmen regard the level of national debt to the size of the economy (GDP) as one of the most important economic indicators in assessing the current and future health of the economy.

The national debt consists of funds borrowed directly by the government plus any debt of the government corporations which have been guaranteed by the government.

Governments usually borrow funds when there is a need to undertake capital projects (office buildings, schools, roads, docks etc.) and the revenue from taxes is insufficient to cover the capital works.

The size of any economy determines the level of potential taxes that could be collected to meet government expenditure needs for, among other things, education, health, law enforcement, social welfare and of course, debt servicing of any loans taken out by the government.

Current and future living standards in any country are influenced by the amount of resources applied by governments, on a yearly basis, to education, health, national security, social welfare and other public sector areas.

In order to ensure that sufficient resources are available on a sustainable basis for those fundamental public sector functions, good fiscal management compels governments to restrain the growth in debt servicing to a level where it does not threaten to crowd out and push aside the needs of the other important sectors of society.

In many third-world countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the public resources from tax revenues to finance public debt have exceeded the public resources allocations for education and health; a position considered by many as an undesirable path towards the lowering of living standards.

In an attempt to address poor policy choices by governments, international agencies such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and the IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) which provide economic advice on a global basis, urge governments to try and keep debt ratios (total national debt as a percentage of total national output or GDP) to a reasonable level.

In the case of developing countries such as The Bahamas, the level suggested is somewhere in the region of 40 percent.

Most countries, particularly those in the developing world, have fallen short of that objective.

Indeed, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago at 26 percent, many developing countries are in the high 80s (Barbados) or, in some cases the ratio exceeds 100 percent, (Jamaica at 123 percent for example), while the European countries have set the debt to GDP ratio at 60 percent as the desired level for their community.  Our nearest neighbor and largest trading partner, the United States, has a debt to GDP ratio that stands at an unusually high level of 97 percent.

When a country’s debt to GDP is high, it implies that the country is struggling and could have difficulty servicing its debt.

Currently The Bahamas’ ratio is in the high 50s and growing.

It is not yet in troublesome territory, but given the trend over the past few years and the growing commitments to further borrowing, including the Chinese loans and the associated capital needs of the utility companies, there is surely some cause for some concern.

The policymakers and other interested parties would need to closely monitor the debt situation to ensure that the nation’s economy remains healthy and that our living standards are not threatened by excessive public sector debt.

Oct 25, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas: Increases in population lead to increased crime ...while increases in gross domestic product (GDP) lead to decreased crime

Study keys in on causes of crime

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

A new scientific study by a College of The Bahamas researcher has concluded what may come as no surprise to policymakers: Increases in population lead to increased crime while increases in gross domestic product (GDP) lead to decreased crime.

“If you know what your population growth is going to be, the government would have to increase GDP by a certain amount to keep the crime rate at wherever their quota is,” said Dr. Yan Lyansky, an assistant professor in the School of Mathematics, Physics and Technology.

Lyansky has come up with a mathematical formula, which he said could accurately predict what the rate of crime would be at any given point in the future based on the population of The Bahamas and the size of its economy.

“Everybody is worried about crime, but according to the numbers it doesn’t look different historically from what’s been going on a very, very long time ago,” he said.

“What I mean is when you talk about population growth, you’re going to naturally get more crime and everything looks consistent.

“It looks like maybe in more recent history there is little more of a spike but there’s not enough data for that to analyze.”

The paper is one of the studies that will be presented at COB’s 2011 Violence Research Symposium on November 3.

The goal of the research conducted by Lyansky is to find the best predictors of violent crime in The Bahamas.

“We assume that the government will be able to change policy to lower the crime rate if it knows the determining factors that influence crime,” said the study’s abstract.

The paper notes that crime has been an escalating problem in the Caribbean.  In The Bahamas, the general public perceives that crime is out of control, it adds.

The paper also says, “The police commissioner is under pressure to find a solution to the problem.”

The study says that as the population increases, the government may need to invest an even greater proportion of its resources in dealing with crime as the number of crimes increase.

It adds, “Government policies should be designed to increase the prosperity of the nation, but what this data shows is that when the country can not position itself to compete or can not cope with external shocks, then crime would be expected to rise.”

In an interview with The Nassau Guardian, Lyansky said, “We can predict exactly where the crime rate’s going to be moving forward, given the fact that it has been very accurate in the past.”

He said that many people who speak about crime and the causes of crime — including some authorities — do not speak from a factual position.

“A lot of the things that are written about crime, that I’ve read, and the explanations that I’ve heard make me shake my head.  They’re not going to help advance a solution,” Lyansky said.

As an example, he said, “The police commissioner, he was close to my house one day giving a talk and his explanation was that it’s all based on drugs and you know, that’s a bunch of nonsense and the reason it’s nonsense is I would actually have liked to make a correlation between the two, however, there is no data on drugs, drug usage or anything here so to make a blanket statement like that, it’s just a statement.

“You’re not actually going to be making progress from [those kinds of statements].”

Lyansky said there are so many inconsistencies in explanations some people provide regarding the causes of crime that it’s impossible to make any scientific determinations about them.

Speaking of the importance of scientific research, he said, “It gives you a better predictor moving forward.

“…If you need GDP to increase and you know the population’s going up, you need to do this to GDP and hence that would be a basic way (to fight crime).”

Oct 24, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

All the pillars of society - the government, the opposition parties, the church, the judiciary, the security forces, the educational system, the family to name a few - must work cooperatively and congenially for the reduction of crime in our Bahamas ...The blame game is most dysfunctional and, at best, divisive...

IS THE SOLUTION TO CRIME TO CHOOSE ONE SIDE OR TO WORK TOGETHER?

By JOSEPH A WALKER
PhD, LLB (Hons) CLE



KINDLY allow me some space in your valuable column to make a few comments on the issue of crime in The Bahamas.

In recent times, it has become fashionable and convenient for those who were themselves at one point or the other, in one capacity or the other, in charge of our country to make public proclamations on the cause of crime and to point fingers at others for the same.

Nothing is wrong with this as it keeps focus on the problem but, in all of it, the proclamations appear to miss the real target. I will return to this point later.

One has heard the Leader of the Official Opposition pontificate about who is responsible for the crime wave we are experiencing and as to what he would do about it if he and his party were returned to political power.

It appears, however, that he has conveniently forgotten that he and his party had five years to deal with this said problem of crime but he and his party did little or nothing to solve the problem and they were removed leaving the problem to grow and fester.

When the crime, at the material time, touched personally, the Leader of the Official Opposition, there were many promises of what he was going to do to get to the bottom of it but, alas, nothing was done. The problem remained unabated.

The Leader of the DNA, like the Leader of the Opposition, has blamed the present government for the problem of crime going so far as to hold the Minister of National Security personally responsible for the problem, quite conveniently forgetting that he was a senior member and Cabinet Minister of the now governing party and therefore shares part of the blame.

While one acknowledges that the crime issue is one of grave concern, leaders as well as those aspiring to be political, religious and social leaders ought not to allow themselves to make pronouncements on this most serious issue based on emotions, spite, political pandering, personal, arbitrary and ascriptive criteria or on poorly understood facts or principles. To do so is to be divisive and it bodes no one well nor does it contribute to the solution of the problem which should be the aim of all those who engage in the debate on the issue.

With all the noise in the market place about crime, particularly crimes involving murder, the salient point that is being missed or ignored or not understood or factored in the analysis is that no one, not the government, not the Minister, not even the parent or spouse of the murderer can prevent a murder unless the murderer makes his intention known prior to carrying out the act.

Even so, one may articulate an intention and may not follow through on the expressed intention or follow through may be delayed.

Murder is ideally personal and, in most cases, private, even if it is committed in a public way. Some murders are spontaneous.

Thus, because murder and other violent crimes can only be prevented if one has prior knowledge of their impending incidence, it is shortsighted and, in many ways, unfair, in one's view, to hold any one personally responsible for them save the perpetrators.

It is for this reason that when the accused of a murder or other crime is convicted of his crime, not the government, the minister or his parents, is punished personally.

This is not to be construed to say crime cannot be prevented for surely certain measures can be put in place to discourage or reduce its incidence, but this will only be effective when we as a society have a clear understanding of the root causes of crime in our society.

Not the causes of crime in the US or other Caribbean territories as published in reports and textbooks, but those causes, if any, characteristic to The Bahamas.

The factors involved in causing crime are varied, multifaceted and, some cases, interrelated and, as such, any number of or any combination of them can synergise in any individual or group of individuals to result in the commission of a crime.

What we, as a society, need to do is to try through detailed and valid longitudinal scientific research, to identify, if we can, those factors, conditions, circumstances, community characteristics, family variables and even national linkages that are common among murderers and perpetrators of other violent crimes that may be trigger factors and therefore attempt to identify and develop and apply practical ameliorative strategies.

Even so, we may, at best, only make a small dent in the problem.

If we can, that would be a starting point from and on which we can build and learn. Crime is not a simple issue in any society.

There is no simple or easy solution therefore. If there were, other more developed and advanced societies would have solved it a long time ago because they have been grappling with it longer than we have.

All the pillars of society - the government, the opposition parties, the church, the judiciary, the security forces, the educational system, the family to name a few - must work cooperatively and congenially for the reduction of crime in our society. The blame game is most dysfunctional and, at best, divisive.

October 20, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party is not ready to govern The Bahamas

DNA not ready to govern

By Kevin Evans

I would like to comment on the ongoing saga surrounding the leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and Member of Parliament for Bamboo Town, Branville McCartney.  While I commend the Bamboo Town MP for chiding his parliamentary colleagues for not disclosing their financial assets to the Public Disclosure Commission for the years 2009 and 2010, I take strong exception to him calling Opposition Leader Perry Christie a wimp and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham a bully.

Both Ingraham and Christie have been in the House of Assembly since 1977.  At that time McCartney was probably just in primary school.  Ingraham and Christie have more than 68 years of combined experience in our parliamentary system.  Branville McCartney, on the other hand, has been in Parliament for only four-and-a-half years.  He served in Ingraham's Cabinet as minister of state for immigration.  He resigned from the Cabinet in early 2010 and he severed ties with the Free National Movement (FNM) earlier this year.

After McCartney left the FNM, he founded the DNA party.  The sudden formation of the DNA after McCartney's exodus from the governing party might very well be an indication that the Bamboo Town MP was planning all along to start his own political party; perhaps as early as 2010.

Remember, in early 2010 McCartney told a Nassau Guardian reporter that he had no intention of resigning from the FNM.  He also told the same reporter that he believed that the FNM was the best party for the country at that time.  So why the sudden change and what's this all about?

McCartney’s ambition

When he was introduced to the constituents of Bamboo Town as the FNM's standard bearer in 2007, or thereabouts, McCartney probably already had ambitions of becoming prime minister after only completing his first term as MP.  Never mind the senior FNM MPs who have faithfully toed the party line for years.  I never heard of Branville McCartney before 2007.  In fact, before 2007 I had never seen him before.  Ingraham ran him in a constituency that has been considered a safe seat for the FNM.  Had it not been for Ingraham, McCartney would not have been in the position he is in today.  Had McCartney ran as an independent candidate in 2007, he would have lost his election deposit.  The FNM has made him, politically speaking, what he is today.

Perhaps McCartney, in calling the prime minister a bully, was simply doing what all opposition parties are expected to do: Oppose the sitting government.  Or maybe the Bamboo Town MP was attempting to gain much-needed publicity.  As the saying goes: All publicity is good publicity.  When McCartney and the DNA came out of the blocks, they had momentum.  The party, however, has lost that momentum during the past few months. The DNA is losing its mojo and appeal.  This is why McCartney has fought hard to stay in the limelight.  Perhaps this can also explain why the Bamboo Town MP has sought to oppose the FNM government on almost every position it holds.  McCartney at times appears to be opposing the Ingraham administration just for the sake of opposing.

Is the public losing affection for McCartney?

Be that as it may, it is crucial that the DNA make the newspaper headlines every week if it wants to remain relevant to The Bahamian people.  The party simply does not have the clout of either the Progressive Liberal Party or the Free National Movement.  I believe that it was the prominent American journalist Margaret Carlson who once said that attention is a depreciating asset.  McCartney and his DNA party would do well to heed this warning.  Bahamians are always looking for the next new thing.  That is why so many Bahamians were euphoric over the initial unveiling of the DNA party.  But it now appears as if all the excitement has cooled down.

McCartney is obviously a very confident man.  He really believes that the Bahamian electorate will support him and his party in 2012.  There's a very thin line between confidence and arrogance, however.  That McCartney and his cadre of inexperienced DNA candidates would even dare to challenge the two most important political parties in Bahamian history tells me that they are biting off more than they can chew.  McCartney is asking The Bahamian electorate to entrust the nation to him and his team of candidates who have little to no experience at running a government.

I think that it would be more prudent for Bahamians to stick with either the FNM or the PLP.  Both of these parties have worked hard to build this nation since majority rule.  Besides, at least we know what we are getting in Ingraham and Christie.

McCartney hasn't even served out his first term as MP, yet he wants to be prime minister of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.  Ingraham and Christie had been members of Parliament for many years before they became prime minister.  In fact, Christie had served an astounding 25 years before he became prime minister in 2002; Ingraham had served 15 years before he became this nation's chief executive in 1992; and Sir Lynden (Pindling) had served over 10 years before he became premier in 1967.  Furthermore, Ingraham was elected to his position as party leader during the FNM's convention in 2005.  On the other hand, the DNA has not yet held a convention.  In my humble opinion, the Bamboo Town MP is just too inexperienced for such an important position.

DNA government would harm country

I am afraid that if the DNA wins the 2012 general election, the party might very well end up running this country aground.  With all due respect to McCartney and the DNA, I don't believe that they are ready to govern The Bahamas.

Being a successful business person does not mean you are ready to sit around the cabinet table and make decisions that will impact the lives of over 330,000 Bahamians.  Managing a grocery store or a laundromat is way different from managing a country.

Handling the finances of a law firm is not the same as handling the finances of a nation.

Right now the DNA candidates are way out of their league.  The candidates are way in over their heads, with all due respect to them.  Maybe it would be best if the DNA candidates all get involved with local government.

They could gain much valuable experience at the local government level before attempting to get into the big leagues.

Oct 21, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Face to face, does the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader - Mr. Branville McCartney have the political pedigree to challenge or face-off with Mr. Hubert Ingraham - the governing Free National Movement (FNM) leader? Or will he be manhandled on the ground?

Ingraham lays into McCartney

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com



As elected officials continue to place their partisan egos in front of a unity of purpose and passionate commitment to a well-reasoned vision for the country’s upliftment, one wonders whether Bahamians will focus on the issues and demand more of their elected leaders during the next general election cycle.

As the election draweth nigh, crime can without doubt be identified as enemy No.1. Quite frankly, if crime is not seen as being effectively dealt with the current government would be doomed in its attempts to enhance its political fortunes come election day. Frankly, issues such as unemployment, the economic downturn, poor agrarian productivity, political corruption, inconveniences suffered as a result of road works (in the minds of some), electricity stability and costs, et cetera, must be seen—by the Bahamian people— as being effectively addressed.

He’s ready for a fight

With a general election on the horizon, we’ve seen a Perry Christie renaissance and based upon Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s recent performance in the House of Assembly—as he addressed the race for the Bamboo Town seat—a reinvigorated FNM leader who is back on the electoral warpath. Frankly, the Prime Minister (PM) essentially dressed DNA leader Branville McCartney in a clown suit last week, hitting him with a political sucker punch and challenging him to a showdown in Bamboo Town—which will unquestionably be a political melee featuring three “leaders”, past and present, of splinter/third parties.

By allowing the Bamboo Town seat to remain untouched and in issuing his challenge to Mr McCartney, Mr Ingraham effectively shifted the spotlight/pressure on McCartney to prove his leadership mettle and political strength by, for one, winning his own seat. Of course, beyond a hand gesture suggesting that Mr Ingraham should meet him at the polls, and a few other utterances whilst seated, Mr McCartney was mum and said nothing for the record—having been the source of jovial, laughter-filled moments shared across the aisle by FNM and PLP members.

Indeed, the ground has effectively been loosened under Mr McCartney by two political titans who, in apparent cooperation in sending two former fringe party leaders as their standard bearers to challenge Mr McCartney, seem to think that he’s a latecomer who has become too big for his britches.

This week, as I watched Mr McCartney sit—stone-faced—as he got schooled by a political mastermind, I couldn’t help but think that perhaps PM Ingraham saw a bit of a younger, more politically apt/mature, Hubert Ingraham in him. Moreover, after Mr Ingraham’s blistering commentary, Mr McCartney—who has levelled verbal jabs at Mr Ingraham in the press and in other forums, appeared to cower in his presence, dumbfounded and—on national television— being exposed as a paper tiger in what appears to be an exploitable mismatch. Stand up Mr McCartney!

Face to face, does McCartney have the political pedigree to challenge or face-off with Mr Ingraham? Or will he be manhandled on the ground? Admittedly, Mr McCartney is a superb MP and has a strong foothold in his constituency.

That said, there are also those persons who would ask if the PM—based upon his comments—would prefer that the PLP win Bamboo Town, or even the government, rather than his younger political nemesis. Such questions abound, particularly in an age where progressive nations such as Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have seen the emergence of a younger generation of leaders and potential successors—regardless of gender.

Certainly, with three parties vying for the hearts and votes of the Bahamian electorate, the stirring and impending electoral drama is lining up to be a political circus with plenty of suspense. Whilst contentious politics is woven into the fabric of Bahamian society, beyond the partisan bickering and preening egos, the issues and concerns of the Bahamian people must not and should not be ignored or cast into the background.

As election season heats up, certain MPs are beginning the mad dash to their respective constituencies with the hope of being given another chance. The coming months, for some Bahamians, will be the first time they have seen their elected representative in nearly five years. This upcoming general election is a time for Bahamians to vote conscientiously and let the power of their votes resonate throughout the archipelago.

On the judicial system

National Security minister Tommy Turnquest should be given a pat on the back and a congratulatory hoorah for his recent remarks regarding the judicial process in the Bahamas. He spoke the truth and, for amazingly showing that he has the cojones to speak it, he deserves two thumbs up!

Frankly, the Bahamas’ judicial system is an archaic mess that has long been neglected to the point that case backlogs and disorganization has led to various sadistic criminals roaming our streets—time after time on bail—whilst frustrating the police and creating openings for criminals to prey, yet again, on another ill-fated victim.

Quite honestly, crime is ravaging our society, causing law abiding Bahamians to live as prisoners in their own homes as the criminal element wreaks havoc in different corners of our archipelago.

Terribly mismanaged

Indeed, the criminal justice system—over the years—has been grossly mismanaged. In recent times, lawlessness has become the order of the day as criminals realize that with the right attorney—and a complementary molasses-like judicial system—their cases would be delayed and buried in our higgledy-piggedly court system and that they could be granted bail to roam, with little or no restraints, in a matter of hours, days or a few months. How many murders, armed robberies and other serious crimes have persons on bail been suspected of, and charged for, committing this year?

Police statistics compiled from 2001 to September 2007 has revealed a significant increase in the number of persons that have been granted bail. In 2001, five people were on bail for murder, rape and armed robbery; six persons were on bail in 2002; five in 2003; 47 in 2004; 39 in 2005; 107 in 2006 and more than 200 in 2007. Wow, one can only imagine the statistic for 2011!

In order to fix the nation’s defunct judicial system and in turn alleviate the logjam, more judges—natives and foreigners—must be sought after for appointment to the bench and efficiency must be the order of the day among court officers/staff. One can see that a step has already been taken in the right direction with the construction of new court rooms and the current Bills before Parliament addressing crime.

The price of justice in this country is too high, too prolonged and simply Third World! Kudos to you Mr Turnquest for saying what so many jelly-belly politicians were too afraid to say!

Published: October 22nd, 2011

Column: Young Man's View, The Tribune's 'The Big T'

Caribbean Blog International