Former Housing Minister Kenneth Russell says: Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is a “dictator” who should not be allowed to run the Free National Movement (FNM) as a “one man show”

Russell responds to being fired

Says PM Ingraham a 'dictator'

By TANEKA THOMPSON
NG Senior Reporter

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is a “dictator” who should not be allowed to run the Free National Movement as a “one man show”, charged former Housing Minister Kenneth Russell, who was fired from his post yesterday.

The High Rock MP said there was no good reason why he was booted from Ingraham’s Cabinet and told The Nassau Guardian he had exceeded the government’s expectations for the Ministry of Housing.

“If the prime minister decides to fire me for whatever reason, that’s his business, but I don’t consider myself as doing anything wrong to be fired,” Russell said.

“If my push to have business come to Grand Bahama is what caused him to fire me, then so be it.  If my push to get as many houses built and change the Ministry of Housing to a better place is what caused him to fire me, so be it.”

Russell suggested that the only reasonable explanation he could give for his sudden firing was his refusal to leave frontline politics when the prime minister told him to retire.

Russell said Ingraham called him on Monday and told him he was not going to be a part of the FNM’s 2012 election slate.

The MP said he told friends of his displeasure with Ingraham’s plans – something Russell thinks did not go over well with the prime minister.

“The prime minister called me on Monday and indicated that he is not going to run me anymore,” Russell told The Nassau Guardian from Grand Bahama, about an hour after he flew to that island after leaving his former ministry in Nassau.

“I told some of my friends about it and I said to them, ‘I don’t know who the prime minister thinks he is, one man in the party telling me he [isn’t] running me anymore’.

“On Wednesday, he said to me he wanted to see me at his house at 8 o’clock that night.  I couldn’t make it because I was going to a function with the Torchbearers (the FNM’s youth arm).

“On Thursday, I had the opening of the Pride III (subdivision) and the groundbreaking for the other subdivision... He only could see me this morning (Friday).

“So I came to Freeport, had a meeting last night (Thursday) with my executives and I flew back to Nassau this morning.  I walked into his office at about 9:30 (a.m.).

“He said to me, ‘You said to somebody, who I think I [am]?’  He said, ‘I will show you who I am.  Give me your resignation by 12 o’clock.’  I said, ‘Or what?’  He said, ‘Or I will do what I have to do.’  I said, ‘Fine, do what you have to do.’  I shook his hand and left the room.”

Although his firing seems sudden, Russell said he knew more than a year ago that there was a rift between himself and the prime minister.

He added the prime minister’s recent actions were the actions of a tyrant.

“I told the prime minister a year and a half ago that he is still my friend, but obviously he no longer has me as a friend.  The moves that Ingraham has made so far with the boundary cuts and what he told me about he’s not running me anymore and what not, they are moves of a dictator,” Russell said.

“I worked with him a long time and this is the first time I have seen this negative side of him.

“The prime minister was my friend.  In fact, we are related.  The same aunties and uncles he has in Cooper’s Town (Abaco), so do I.

“I don’t know why he turned this way, but I have no problem with it; it’s his choice to make. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, the Lord is always with me, and even though Ingraham would attempt to slay me, I still love him.

“I was surprised at the way he handled this and what he is doing.  He may have justifiable reasons in his mind; I don’t have any.  I thought he was a good leader... I told people [under] the rough exterior he was a compassionate man.

“I told people that Ingraham will give you the shirt off his back if necessary.  I will stand by that for the time being until he proves to me otherwise.”

The MP said he still is a member of the Free National Movement and plans to apply for a nomination on the party’s ticket for the new East Grand Bahama constituency.

“The FNM is my party.  I’ve been there from the beginning and I will continue to work with the FNM, and I intend to seek the nomination of the East Grand Bahama constituency for the FNM in the next general election,” Russell said.

As for what he will do if he is not selected as an FNM candidate, Russell said: “I will cross that bridge when I get to it.  Right now I am the FNM member of Parliament for the High Rock constituency and I will be seeking the FNM nomination for the new Eastern Grand Bahama constituency.

“We have the right to apply.  It should be no one man show, one man selecting who the candidates are.  The candidate’s committee and the council of the Free National Movement should be selecting the candidates for the FNM party.”

Russell said he plans to be in Parliament when it meets Monday, but does not know where he will sit.  Prior to his firing, he sat next to Ingraham.

Earlier this week, a defiant Russell — a member of Parliament for 15 years — said his party could lose thousands of votes if he is not renominated.

Yesterday afternoon, the Cabinet Office announced that Russell had been relieved of his ministerial responsibilities because of conduct inconsistent with his duties.

Minister of Works and Transport Neko Grant has assumed Russell’s portfolio.

Dec 10, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Kenneth Russell: Minister of Housing and Member of Parliament for High Rock was fired from Hubert Ingraham's Cabinet

KENNETH RUSSELL FIRED FROM CABINET

By PAUL G TURNQUEST

Tribune242 Chief Reporter

pturnquest@tribunemedia.net

MINISTER of Housing and Member of Parliament for High Rock Kenneth Russell was fired from the Cabinet of the Bahamas at 9.30am today, The Tribune can report.

According to party insiders, Mr Russell’s termination came as a result of him “breaking Cabinet protocol” and allegedly discussing Cabinet decisions in the media. Reportedly Mr Russell’s challenge to his party leader, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, that he would be running in High Rock despite his party’s wishes was the “final straw”.

The Minister of Works and Transport, Neko Grant, will now take over responsibility of the Ministry of Housing.

FNM Chairman Carl Bethel told The Tribune yesterday that he could not comment on Mr Russell’s termination as it was a Cabinet decision and “not a party matter”.

However, PLP MP for Fox Hill  Fred Mitchell said that there is no question that the FNM Cabinet has “collapsed”.

Claiming that there is a tremendous amount of resentment in the FNM, Mr Mitchell called on Mr Russell, Clifton MP Kendal Wright and Eight Mile Rock MP Verna Grant to join with the PLP and vote Mr Ingraham out of office. 

“The handwriting has been on the wall for days, the collapse of the FNM Cabinet as we knew it. Constitutionally, the position has now been regularised with the dismissal of Kenneth Russell from the Cabinet,” Mr Mitchell said.

Recalling his earlier statements published in The Tribune, Mr Mitchell said that he questioned how Mr Russell could remain in the Cabinet given the fact that he publicly dissented from a decision of the Cabinet and was chastised by the Prime Minister for doing so in the House of Assembly.

“I understand that the situation became more untenable for the former Minister when he made his position pellucidly clear about opposing the will of the Prime Minister at the meeting of the party held last evening in Freeport,” Mr Mitchell added.

“The Prime Minister acted this morning to dismiss him once he heard the content of his comments. Mr Ingraham had to act to help to frighten the other troops and keep them in line. My concern is for the stability of the government and ultimately the country. What we see happening is only the tip of the iceberg, a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to save himself.

“This is 2002 revisited. Firing ministers, attacking his own people. Mr Russell, Kendal Wright and Verna Grant should join us in the PLP and vote Mr Ingraham out. The government is operating on a knife’s edge. It is time for the Prime Minister to go to the people and put himself out his misery and allow the PLP the opportunity to govern. I remind the Prime Minister that in the circumstances when the new Parliament meets, the maxim will be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Mr Mitchell said.

 December 09, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...not all of the Members of Parliament (MPs) who were elected on the Free National Movement’s (FNM's) ticket in 2007 will be renominated, as the party seeks to bring in fresh faces for the 2012 general election

PM: FNM eyeing fresh faces

By Krystel Rolle
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasgaurd.com

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said yesterday that not all of the members of Parliament who were elected on the Free National Movement’s ticket in 2007 will be renominated, as the party seeks to bring in fresh faces.

“The Free National Movement expects to be able to bring into the House and its parliamentary fold, a number of new persons,” Ingraham told reporters outside of the House of Assembly.

“The party is very grateful to all the people who served but no job is permanent whether it’s mine or anybody else’s.  We all have a season or a time and the party will do what it considers to be best.

“The party will have a recommendation from myself to the executive committee and if the committee goes along with it, then it will go to the council of the party and the council of the party will make a decision.”

The House of Assembly passed a resolution last week to bring effect to the recommendation of the Constituencies Commission to reduce the number of seats in Parliament from 41 to 38.

Ingraham yesterday tabled the Boundaries Order, which was signed by the governor general on October 5.

“So the next election we will be electing 38 members only,” Ingraham said. “On Monday we will table the polling Division Order. The Free National Movement will proceed to select and nominate candidates for those 38 seats in the coming weeks.”

Currently, the FNM has 23 MPs in the House of Assembly.  However, several of them are not seeking re-election, including North Eleuthera MP Alvin Smith and South Abaco MP Edison Key, The Guardian understands.

As it relates to rumors that two FNM MPs intend to resign from the party and force him to call an early election, the prime minister said those reports are incorrect.

“I’ve read in the newspaper, most especially The Tribune, a number of stories about the ability of an MP or more than one to be able to force the prime minister to call an election early.  That is totally untrue.  That’s not possible.  All one needs to do is read the constitution and see the authority given to the prime minister with respect to the calling of election.

“The only people who are able to cause the prime minister to call an election before he is ready are the people of The Bahamas. They can force the prime minister’s hands. Individual members can not require the prime minister to [do so].  I want to make that clear.”

Ingraham was responding to The Tribune articles which claimed that Eight Mile Rock MP Verna Grant and Clifton MP Kendal Wright were planning to resign.

“I have received no information about the resignation of anyone from my party.  If we do we’ll make an announcement. The member for Eight Mile Rock telephoned me at home to advise me that the story in The Tribune is inaccurate.

“I have not spoken to the other member.  But people don’t have to give me notice. I can read the newspaper. If they tell me that they have gone, then fine. Thanks very much for your service. You don’t have to write to me.  I don’t need a favor.”

The Guardian attempted to speak to Wright yesterday, however he declined to answer questions about his possible resignation.

Meantime, Grant confirmed to The Guardian that she intends to stay with the party.

Ingraham said he hopes that voter’s cards will be ready to be issued by the first week in January.

Dec 08, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Twelve (12) homes in six government subdivisions are being occupied without mortgages... Thanks to the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)

TRIBUNE 242 EXCLUSIVE: HOMES GIVEN OUT WITHOUT MORTGAGES BY PLP MINISTRY


By AVA TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net


TWELVE homes in six government subdivisions are being occupied without mortgages, The Tribune has learned.

According to Tribune sources close to the matter, the homes are located in Sunset Subdivision, 5; Dignity Gardens, 2; Pride Estates I, 2; Hope Gardens, 1; Jubilee Gardens, 1; and East Coral Estates, 1. The keys to eight of the homes were given out in 2006, two in 2004, and one in 2003 and 2007.

Sandra Storr, acting managing director at the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation (BMC), said both front and back-end mortgage lending guidelines have since been tightened to guard against further mismanagement.

The undocumented units are the remnants of a years-long regularisation process undertaken by the corporation in an attempt to recover funds spent to construct the homes, Mrs Storr said.

"As we went along over the years we regularized a lot of persons, but we still have 12 unregularised in government homes," she said.

"How it happened, that's the issue under discussion. It just happened."

"There are various reasons," Mrs Storr added, "sometimes the loan approval was in place but then we take it to the attorney for due diligence and it's discovered that some of the persons had pending judgments that they didn't mention, and you can't get a mortgage if you have something pending in court."

Applicants for government housing are assigned by the Ministry of Housing and then forwarded to the BMC for final assessment and approval. However, Mrs Storr said that the keys to government homes are distributed by the Ministry of Housing.

"There have been challenges in regularising," she said.

"We're taking the lesser of two evils because they're already in the house and you can't foreclose on something that you don't have. When we regularize, we can legally get a mortgage."

Upon scrutiny of the unregularised homes, it was discovered that some units were engaged in a rental agreement with the Ministry of Housing, Mrs Storr said.

"We finance all housing units, we disburse the funds, but housing gives the keys and I can't tell you when unregularized residents got the keys. We're trying to recover the funds we spent," Mrs Storr said.

"Anywhere and anyhow we can get some money in, we try to get it. But it has to be recorded as rental income and collected on behalf of Housing.

"In a lot of cases, (residents) know what's going on when we contact them."

Last night, Mrs Storr said the challenges faced by the corporation as it moves to not only register the government homes, but collect on outstanding mortgages are symptomatic of a cultural mindset towards government-run institutions.

"Unfortunately, people are of the view that a government institution should be more lenient to the point where it's not financially prudent," she said.

"That's a mindset we wish to change, that we definitely need to change in this whole country."

December 07, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

It’s time for political debates: ...Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie refuse to debate each other... and they certainly won’t agree to debate with Branville McCartney

It’s time for debate

By Ian G. Strachan

I have said it before and I say it again here: the political directorate is lagging behind the people.  They are no longer leading the people, they are no longer in front of the people, clearing the way, cutting a path, leading by example, inspiring and mobilizing them.  No.  Instead they are behind the people.  More backward than the people.  More afraid than the people.  More reluctant to change than the people.  Less open-minded than the people.  Less prepared to have an honest, frank discussion than the people.  Less prepared to ‘put all their cards on the table’ than the people.

I don’t pretend that Bahamians have it all together and are not themselves victims of inferiority complexes, phobias, or crippling fundamentalisms.  I don’t pretend for instance that Ingraham is more backward than the people because he opposes the death penalty.  No, I don’t mean that our leaders are behind the people in every sense.  But I do mean it in one very, very important sense. What I am saying is that the people are ready for a deeper version of our democracy; the people are ready to be included more fully in the processes of governance; and the politicians do not want this.   I say ‘the politicians’, but that is not precise.  The leaders of the parties don’t want democracy deepened – not the pace or in a fashion that could weaken their advantages, their privileges.  I can see Hubert Ingraham now smiling at my contention and reminding me that he liberated the airwaves.  I smile back and I am not moved.

Why debates are needed

I could speak to the fact that our political parties have lifetime voting delegates (a corrupt practice that perverts democracy and brings a suffocating determinism to our politics).  But instead I will discuss something so much smaller than that and yet so crucial to this moment in our history.  The small but telling example I offer is the notion of a national debate between the leaders, broadcast live on radio and television, where the questions (although pre-approved) are delivered by members of the media and civil society.  And where follow-up questions are allowed.  A simple enough proposition.  But apparently, out of the question.

No doubt, political junkies in this country have watched with a mixture of curiosity and amusement the nauseous Republican debates.  The party is struggling to find its alternative to Barack Obama.  The Republicans have decided that a gutted, paralyzed, starving America is better than a prosperous America led by a Negro.  So be it.

Here, we are being asked to choose between two men who have been in Parliament for more than 30 years, who pretend to be rivals but are actually blood brothers, Ingraham and Christie.  What difference will it really make in terms of policy, which one we pick?  And yes, we are also asked to consider newcomer Bran McCartney and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).  But could we not save precious money and time by limiting the number of carnivalesque political ‘rallies’ we are subjected to over the next few months?  Wouldn’t it be wiser, safer (in terms of the bad behavior that follows these drunken rallies) and more efficient to hold three properly planned and organized debates between these three rivals?  A commission should be established to organize and execute just such debates in the interest of our democracy.

In the U.S. they have something called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).  According to its webpage, it “was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.

“Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates.  The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

“To meet its ongoing goal of educating voters, the CPD is engaged in various activities beyond producing and sponsoring presidential debates.  Its staff prepares educational materials and conducts research to improve the quality of debates.  Further, the CPD provides technical assistance to emerging democracies and others interested in establishing debate traditions in their countries.  In recent years, the staff worked with groups from Bosnia, Burundi, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Haiti, Jamaica, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, and the Ukraine, among others. Finally, the CPD coordinates post-debate symposia and research after many of its presidential forums.”

Now, to be fair, the political directorate of The Bahamas is no different from the directorate in America in this crucial way: they will do everything in their power to control, modulate and contain political processes as much as possible to ensure that they obtain a favorable result.  A favorable result being: they remain in power or share power with as few as possible.

It should be noted that the CPD is co-chaired by two agents of the Republican and Democratic parties,  Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael McCurry.   Fahrenkopf is a former chairman of the GOP and  Michael D. McCurry was Bill Clinton’s press secretary.  The honorary co-chairmen of the commission are listed on the website as Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and William J. Clinton.  How you can have two honorary co-chairmen who are dead beats me (Ford and Reagan).

You can well imagine that if the Dems and Republicans run the commission itself, then third party candidates and independents will be marginalized – much in the same manner as Dr. Bernard Nottage, then leader of the now defunct Coalition for Democratic Reform, was excluded from a debate on Charles Carter’s 102.9FM between Perry Christie and Tommy Turnquest in the run-up to the 2002 election.

Public pressure on issue ­is needed

Power and privilege perpetuate themselves.  Different elements of the establishment collaborate to exclude those who threaten the order of things – even if the threat is slight.  So the political directorate, political financiers and media houses work together.  This is true in America and true in The Bahamas.  In the case of the current search for a Republican candidate, it is worth noting that moderate candidate and former governor of Louisiana, Buddy Roemer, has been completely excluded from the debates of the Republican Party while people with nowhere near his credibility and competence – like Herman Cain – have been included.  The Republican debates are not controlled by the CPD but (ostensibly) by the sponsors; still, the filtering takes place.  The reason: Roemer is anti-establishment.  He wants to take money out of electoral politics.  Roemer said, “Even when I garner the required one percent needed to qualify, Fox News has decided to exclude me.  I am the only candidate who has been a congressman and a governor, but apparently that is not good enough for the debate sponsors.”

So even if we create a system of debates for our elections we must be vigilant to ensure fair play and to ensure that vested interests do not hijack what is intended to be an open-ended process in which the best ideas and the best man or woman in the eyes of the public, emerge.

An organization has been created to challenge the practices of the CPD in America, called Open Debates.  According to its website: “Open Debates is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization working to reform the presidential debates so that they better serve the interests of the American people.  Currently, the presidential debates are secretly controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties, through a private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates.  As a result, challenging formats and popular independent candidates are often excluded from the debates.

“Open Debates is engaged in multiple campaigns to inform the public, the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the Commission on Presidential Debates.  Open Debates is also promoting an alternative presidential debate sponsor – the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission – which is comprised of national civic leaders committed to maximizing voter education.”

I cannot pretend that a series of debates will heal all that ails our political system, and all that is wrong with our elections.  I cannot pretend that debates would be sufficient to create an informed and empowered populace or straight talking leaders who are prepared to put the public good first in every instance.  What I am prepared to say is that debates will add much more value to our electoral process than what is currently extant.

But Ingraham and Christie refuse to debate each other.  And they certainly won’t agree to debate with McCartney.  This is unacceptable in 2011.  Unacceptable.  The true disgrace, though, is not that these two men agree together not to challenge each other to a debate, the true disgrace is that their political parties, made up of every class of Bahamian, refuse to insist upon the same for the benefit and edification of the nation.

I therefore call on the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Council, the president of the College of The Bahamas, the publishers of The Tribune, Guardian and Bahama Journal, and the chief executive officer of every other media outlet, to convene a meeting on behalf of the people whom they serve to discuss a debates protocol.  They must devise a format for these debates.  Obviously the American Embassy can assist, if for some reason we think we don’t have the wherewithal to plan these ourselves.  Once the plan is prepared it should be presented to the public and to the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.  If these civic leaders do not rise to the occasion and insist that the Free National Movement (FNM) and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rise as well, they too must be indicted by history.

If Ingraham and Christie reject this plan (I can’t imagine McCartney rejecting it since he has the most to gain), then we will leave them to the public to judge and deal with accordingly on election day.

Dec 05, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Campaign finance reform deserves a place on the Bahamian political agenda... It is not a new idea, but it's one worth repeating as often as possible until something is done about it

Campaign finance reform

thenassauguardian editorial

In the House of Assembly recently, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham put MPs on notice that they are expected to submit public disclosure records for 2009 and 2010 in accordance with the Public Disclosure Act.

The prime minister also threatened to make public the list of MPs who have not yet done so. MPs,along with numerous other public officials, have until March 31 of each year to disclose their financial records for the previous calendar year. The last records made public were for the year 2007, and not all MPs disclosed that year.

It is up to the Public Disclosure Commission to make those records public. Senior public officers who fail to disclose, their and their immediate families' assets, interests and income could be subject to a $10,000 fine, up to two years in jail or both.

And where the offense involves the deliberate non-disclosure of the property of a senator or MP the court could order the property forfeited to the government.

While The Bahamas is well ahead of some of its regional counterparts in requiring individual public officers to disclose their financial records, it's time to take it one step further in the form of campaign finance regulations.

As it now stands, the financing of political campaigns in The Bahamas is considered an entirely private affair between party candidates and political parties and their contributors.

And it's apparent that there is no real political will to change that arrangement.

The idea to regulate campaign contributions has received a lukewarm response at best, and if raised at all often results in vague, empty promises.

In a democratic society, donating to a campaign is a right. Through a campaign donation an individual or group can show support and belief in a particular candidate or political party.

Political parties obviously need to raise funds. But the concern is that if left unregulated, donations from private sources, such as wealthy individuals, foreign investors or large companies can lead to undue influence on the political system, drowning out the interests of the poor and less powerful. There is also the very serious concern about tainted funds.

Election campaigns are an expensive venture. And while money does not ensure victory, lack of money will almost always mean defeat. The high cost of election paraphernalia and the long-time tradition of money in the hope of getting votes only exacerbate the situation.

Both Ingraham and Opposition Leader Perry Christie have commented publicly on the high cost of election campaigns.

The Ingraham administration recently fulfilled one of its key legislative promises when it tabled the long overdue Freedom of Information Bill. It did so as part of its pledge to promote greater transparency and accountability.

The governing party, opposition and all political organizations that one day hope to lead this country should all get behind campaign finance reform in a meaningful way.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to campaign finance reform. The context and political culture must be taken into account, and regulations should not hinder healthy competition. But no one would argue that the process should not be made more transparent. Legislation should be developed that regulates media policy, what donors are allowed to do, how much parties are allowed to spend, what they must disclose and to whom, and what meaningful penalties would be imposed for non-disclosure.

Campaign finance reform deserves a place on the political agenda. It is not a new idea, but it's one worth repeating as often as possible until something is done about it.

Dec 03, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

In these uncertain times, any Bahamian political leader must be able to speak to the emotions, hopes and dreams of his or her people

Why we need a Churchill

By Rishard P. O. Cooper

As I take in the news from around our majestic archipelago, and observe our seemingly downward social and economic spiral, I cannot help but be reminded of the appeasement policy British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and other European leaders followed during the late 1930s.  Chamberlain’s appeasement policy has been hotly debated ever since.  Some historians have concluded that the policy allowed Nazi Germany to grow too powerful.  Others argue that Chamberlain had no other choice under the circumstances.  In any event, Chamberlain lost the 1940 general election to Winston Churchill, a man who realized Adolf Hitler for who he was.  Churchill understood that negotiations with Hitler would bring neither peace nor security.  Churchill was a complex fellow, a heavy drinker, clairvoyant, witty, and an unabashed imperialist who was deeply loyal to his homeland.  No matter the odds, Churchill was literally prepared to fight until the end to preserve his country.  He was also an eloquent speaker who was able to inspire his people during some of his nation’s darkest hours.

We face serious problems

Churchill was the right person for the time, but woe to the country that needs a Churchill!  What I am getting at is that a country should not be taken to the brink of destruction or permit destructive forces to threaten its existence and way of life.  Here in The Bahamas, it appears that our country is in a similar predicament to the UK in the late 1930s.  Let me be clear, The Bahamas is not facing a threat on the scale of Nazi Germany, which committed some of the most unthinkable atrocities known to man.  Instead, my point is that we as Bahamians are at a point where the future direction of our country, our way of life, our culture, our standards of living, are in danger.  Already, this year we have had a record-breaking year in terms of murders, not to mention other violent crimes.  WWII arguably changed the fate of Europe drastically.  After the war, the United States became the dominant superpower, European colonialism began to crumble and to this day the Europeans have not been able to gain their pre-eminence on the international stage.

Churchill led Britain during turbulent, perilous times that required a leader who was up to the task.  Churchill possessed a rare combination of decisiveness, eloquence, tenacity and charm that made him a great leader.  Given the circumstances The Bahamas currently finds itself in, we need a leader who possesses a similar complement of talents such that he or she is able to speak to both the hearts and minds of Bahamians.  In these uncertain times, any Bahamian political leader must be able to speak to the emotions, hopes and dreams of his or her people.  Yes, a modern political leader must have a firm grasp of finance and economics.  However, any future prime minister of The Bahamas must also be a great communicator.  The reality on the ground is that many Bahamian people are disaffected and dejected.  To address this, our “Churchillian” leader must craft governmental policies to provide opportunity to the people and at the same time regularly and forcefully uplift and inspire the people.  This must be done hand in hand and with equal vigor and determination.  One without the other will not be enough.

Inspiration

Modern leaders have a lot more competition in capturing the attention of their people.  Today Bahamians are able to log on to the Internet with their laptops, iPads, Blackberries, or turn on cable and watch any number of entertaining programs from around the world.  In the 1930s when Roosevelt and Churchill dominated the political scene, there were less options to distract or attract citizens.  A skillful and innovative leader must realize this and formulate strategies to communicate with Bahamians on their own terms and in an entertaining and captivating manner.  Currently, many political videos are disseminated online via Facebook and Twitter.  I would encourage our government leaders to implement and create a series of short, inspirational videos targeting Bahamians in general.  However it is not enough to simply inspire through the use of flowery and hortatory language.  People want action.  Churchill said he would fight the enemy in the air, in the streets, in the hills, in the landing grounds, and he would never surrender!  That’s exactly what Churchill went about doing.  Our leaders must do the same.

 

Rishard Cooper is an international corporate attorney. Email feedback to: rishard.cooper@gmail.com

Dec 02, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International