It was not easy for men such as Sir Clifford Darling to challenge the old political order of the day, but through courage and perseverance they succeeded in making The Bahamas a better place

Respect and our nation builders

thenassauguardian editorial

Countries and peoples demonstrate maturity, or lack thereof, when nation builders die.  In mature places men and women who were at war, politically, for years set aside rivalry and honor the successes of departed opponents.

In unstable places, places not at ease, there is pettiness and spite when the legacies of dead statesmen are analyzed.

Maturity was on display after the death on Tuesday of former Governor General Sir Clifford Darling.  Sir Clifford, the fourth Bahamian-born governor general, died at Princess Margaret Hospital at 89 after a long illness.

“His proud legacy will not be forgotten,” said Prime Minister and Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Hubert Ingraham in a statement.

“Sir Clifford’s passing brings to a close another remarkable career of an early nation builder and pioneer for equality.”

Sir Clifford had a decorated life in politics, which culminated when he was appointed governor general in 1992.  He had served as a Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) MP from 1967 to 1991.

In 1971, he was appointed minister of labour and national insurance and had oversight of the introduction of the National Insurance program.  Sir Clifford also served as a senator and as speaker of the House of Assembly.

In November 1957, Sir Clifford and a group of cab drivers blockaded and closed the airport in a bid to protest an exclusive deal the major hotels had with a taxi company, which resulted in a monopoly that excluded the taxi union.  The General Strike followed in January.

Perry Christie, leader of the opposition and of the PLP, noted the significance of the 1958 General Strike in the achievement of majority rule.

“Clifford Darling was a major figure in that political struggle as well under the banner of the Progressive Liberal Party,” he said.

Branville McCartney, leader of the Democratic National Alliance, also offered a note of respect on the death of Sir Clifford.

“Our nation is forever blessed to have birthed a true nationalist like Sir Clifford Darling,” he said in a statement.

“We, as leaders, could learn so much from his service and sacrifice, and should honor him by trying to mirror his great legacy.  Bahamians everywhere are eternally grateful to reap the fruits of his labor; I know that I'm one of them.”

All great men and women do much good and make quite a few mistakes.  When the historical record is written, the entire scope of work of historic figures should be analyzed.  What is important for the development and evolution of a young country is that we collectively keep the respectful, reasonable and fair tone, which was on display this week, when we speak of those who sacrificed much to build an independent Bahamas – be they PLPs, FNMs or even members of the old United Bahamian Party.

For our policymakers we must make sure that modern Bahamian history is taught as much as possible in our schools.  This history will help the next generation know what it took for us as a people to come this far and what it will take for us to go further in the 21st century.

It was not easy for men such as Sir Clifford to challenge the old political order of the day, but through courage and perseverance they succeeded in making The Bahamas a better place.

Dec 29, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

This year in Bahamian politics - 2011: ... and in 2012... crime, the economy, the New Providence roadworks and leadership are likely to be the major issues debated during the general election campaign... The Bahamian electorate will decide if they want Perry Christie, Hubert Ingraham or Branville McCartney — that is, if a clear winner is chosen

An intriguing year in politics

Year in review 2011

By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com

This year in politics has been a preparation for the year to come.  Next year men who have dedicated their lives to politics are preparing to fight for power, likely for the last time.

Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie, leaders of the Free National Movement (FNM) and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) respectively, are the main contenders.  Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) are making their first appearance.

In 2011, each political leader was faced with internal upset.  Sitting parliamentarians, potential candidates and political wannabes all expressed anger in the public sphere when it became evident that the end had come to their ambitions or careers.

A minister is fired

Kenneth Russell, MP for High Rock and former housing minister, sat next to Hubert Ingraham in the House of Assembly.  Up until November, he rigorously defended Ingraham, his leader, and the policies of his administration.

Then in December, that bond between the men was broken with Russell publicly calling Ingraham a ‘tyrant’ and a ‘dictator’ after being fired from Ingraham’s Cabinet.

“I worked with him a long time and this is the first time I have seen this negative side of him,” said Russell on December 9, the day he was fired.

“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.”

Ingraham indicated Russell was fired for inappropriately discussing Cabinet business — a project for Grand Bahama that was rejected by Cabinet.  However, some political observers think Russell’s termination resulted from Ingraham’s desire not to run him in the next election and his public complaints about that decision.

Whatever the reason, Russell ends 2011 an outsider.  He will not be a candidate for Ingraham’s FNM.

Opposition party upset

Christie and McCartney had their share of public break-ups too over nominations.

In June, then PLP treasurer Craig Butler resigned his post and left the party because he could not secure a PLP nomination.

Butler sought the party nomination in the February 2010 Elizabeth by-election.  He was rejected.  He then tried for the PLP nomination for the old Kennedy constituency.  He was rejected again.

Butler has admitted past drug use.  The PLP, a party that has had to wrestle with embarrassing scandals in the past, would not budge on its opposition to Butler’s candidacy under its banner.  Butler has vowed to run as an independent.

While Butler left the party because he could not get a nomination, a former PLP colleague of his was forced to announce he would not run in the general election.

Vincent Peet, the North Andros and Berry Islands MP, on December 20 bowed out after an issue regarding $180,000 in client funds was made public in a series of Nassau Guardian stories.

“After much prayerful deliberation and after much consultation with constituents, colleagues, family and friends, including the esteemed leader of my party, Perry Christie, I have decided not to stand for re-election in the forthcoming general election,” Peet said in a statement.

“My decision in this regard is final and irreversible and I have informed my leader and the relevant councils of my party accordingly.  At this particular juncture of my life, I need to concentrate my attention and energy on my legal practice.”

Dr. Perry Gomez is to take Peet’s place as the PLP’s North Andros candidate.

DNA disputes

McCartney’s party revoked the nominations of two candidates, it said, for non-performance.

Former High Rock candidate Philip Thomas and former South Beach candidate Sammie Poitier, also known as Sammi Starr, were out at the end of November.

However, McCartney and Thomas gave different reasons as to why Thomas is no longer the candidate for High Rock.

Thomas claimed he was kicked out for disagreeing with McCartney, while McCartney claimed Thomas was not living up to the commitment he made to the party.

On December 5, McCartney denied reports that his party was falling apart after the break-up with Thomas and Poitier.

“It’s not falling apart at all; it’s growing every day and getting stronger and stronger,” he said.

“We’ve been in existence for six months, we’ve made history in six months and we have become a major party within a six-month period.”

Is the DNA real?

McCartney faced these political issues at year’s end.  His DNA party was launched May 12.  At his launch event at the Wyndham Nassau Resort on Cable Beach he called on Bahamians to “redefine the possible”.

“I truly believe that you are not here simply because you have nothing better to do, but because you believe that change is necessary, and you know, like I know, that our country is not the country we envisioned it to be,” he said.

McCartney hopes to take advantage of perceived dissatisfaction with the PLP and FNM.

In 2002, with Ingraham as leader and Tommy Turnquest as leader-elect, the FNM lost by a landslide margin to the PLP.  In 2007, with a growing economy, Christie’s PLP lost to the Ingraham-led FNM.  In 2012, Ingraham and Christie plan to return to the electorate as the leaders of their respective parties.

They present themselves at a time when the country has set four murder records in five years and the unemployment rate is above 13 percent.

McCartney thinks the Bahamian people now want a change.

Even if this is true, Bahamians are conservative voters.  Dr. Bernard Nottage was the leader of the Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR) in 2002.  He was the sitting Member of Parliament for Kennedy at the time, having left the PLP.  In that election Dr. Nottage’s party only won two percent of the vote and he lost his seat.

History is not on McCartney’s side.

The stakes are high for the leaders

Ingraham and Christie have been at it, politically, for quite a while.  Both have been MPs since 1977.  Both were young ministers in Sir Lynden Pindling’s Cabinet.  Both served as leader of the opposition and as prime minister.

Christie will be 69 next year.  Ingraham will be 65.  These friends and adversaries have become so powerful in their respective parties that neither could be moved internally.  But, the years have taken their toll and most observers think that this is the last race for the historic duo — the winner becoming prime minister again and the loser going in to retirement.

For McCartney, the stakes are also high.  If his DNA does poorly and he loses his seat in the House, a promising career could be over.

Crime, the economy, the New Providence roadworks and leadership are likely to be the major issues debated during the campaign.  The voters will decide if they want Christie, Ingraham or McCartney — that is, if a clear winner is chosen.

The 2007 general election was decided by fewer than 4,000 votes and the 2010 Elizabeth by-election by only three votes after a court case.  The country has remained divided from the last general election and a third party makes the race more unpredictable.

If Ingraham wins again his political success will debatably rival his mentor Sir Lynden Pindling.  If Christie wins he would be able to complete an agenda he thinks was pulled from him too soon.  If McCartney wins, even just a few seats, Bahamian politics would change forever.

With 38 seats in play –—the boundaries commission cut the constituency number to the constitutional minimum — this battle will play out seat by seat in community after community.  As it should be, the people will decide the fates of these leaders and their parties.

Dec 28, 2011

thenassauguardian

Those who refuse to exercise their right to vote for cavalier and unreflective reasons, do a disservice to the witness of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Bahamian men and women freedom fighters, and protestors around the world today for whom the right to vote is a democratic gift not to be taken lightly nor for granted

The right and duty to vote

Front Porch

By Simon

Those Bahamians who take for granted our democracy and their right to vote with smug or shallow excuses for not registering or voting, might wish to read the cover story of the December 26 edition of Time Magazine announcing its 2011 “Person of the Year”.

Instead of a single person, Time selected “The Protestor” in tribute to protestors around the world, and especially across North Africa and the Middle East who are forcing democratic change, including the right to vote.

What has been termed the Arab Spring is unfolding in different ways from the Maghreb to the Levant, perhaps even stirring protests for fairer elections in Russia.  Still, no matter the country, protestors are bound by the shared goals of political enfranchisement and greater economic empowerment.

The choice of The Protestor has a double-significance: It links collective action with individual choice, which is the ideal of free and fair elections.  Just as it may require a mass of protestors to gain the right of an individual to vote, it takes a mass of voters to continually secure those rights by exercising their franchise.

It was just over a year ago in Tunisia that the democratic flowering of the Arab Spring bloomed.  What forced the Spring and galvanized the forces of change was an act of the ultimate sacrifice by 26-year-old fruit vendor Mohammed Bouazizi.

Bouazizi was the primary breadwinner for his mother and siblings.  Deeply distraught at having his produce confiscated yet again, and at being harassed by various authorities over many years, he lit himself afire to protest his treatment and that of scores of Tunisians.

Catalyst

His death some days later from severe burns and injuries was the catalyst for events still unfolding.  Within a year, longstanding and entrenched dictators fell in Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Egypt.  Other regimes such as the Assad dynasty in Syria appear imperilled.

The giddy illusion by some that with the despots gone, well-functioning democracies would quickly emerge was punctured by chaotic legislative elections in Egypt, and the fear that the generals who secured Hosni Mubarak’s rule might not be intent on giving up power so quickly.

Fearing that their democratic revolution might be at risk, the protestors who voted Mubarak out of office with their bodies returned to the now famous Tahrir Square as a warning to the generals.

The unfolding of democratic revolutions occurring in the Middle East and North Africa, highlight a charter of rights fundamental to a functioning democracy, among them the rights of free assembly and speech to support or protest an idea or government.

A companion right which bolsters and protects these and other democratic rights is the right to vote in free and fair elections for the representatives and government of one’s choosing.

There are a number of glib excuses some give for not voting: “All politicians are the same. … These politicians don’t do anything for me. … My vote doesn’t count. … The system is flawed.”  There are other variations on these themes.

While there may be rare cases of conscientious objection for not voting, most of the excuses tend to be juvenile and glib evincing an almost pristine and wilful ignorance of history and the struggle for freedom and democracy.

The right to vote is a symbol and guarantor of democratic rights and freedoms.  Martin Luther King Jr. and those who marched and died for a Voting Rights Act enfranchising black Americans would not understand those today who take such a right for granted.

Nor would Nelson Mandela who spent over a quarter a century in prison or the millions of South Africans who often walk hours to a voting station, then spend additional hours on line waiting to vote.

In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi was recently released from house arrest after many years.  She has agreed to and is encouraging the Burmese people to participate in upcoming elections.  It is unclear if those elections will be free and fair.  Having won a previous election which was annulled by the then military junta, she has not given up on democratic politics.

Arrogance

To refuse to vote is a decision.  It shows a level of disdain and contempt for our democratic system.  There is a certain arrogance to those who feel that voting is beneath them and that they won’t participate in electing “those politicians” (who, incidentally, are our fellow citizens).

Voting is not fundamentally about politicians.  It is about the citizenry choosing their elected representatives and holding them accountable.  Democracy, like the human condition is imperfect, requiring constant improvement and renewal.  The alternative is a system of anarchy.

There is also an immaturity to those who refuse to help choose the nation’s elected representatives and refuse also to participate in governance.  Still, they expect someone else to make the tough decisions on everything from crime to the economy to education.

Often, these same individuals have much to say on issues of public policy though they refuse to vote or become involved in governance.  There is a level of hypocrisy by those who sit on their high horses complaining about the politicians while refusing to participate.

A refusal to exercise one’s right to vote is a dereliction of a basic right for which many have fought and died, and for which many are still struggling.  For the progeny of slaves, it is a sort of disregard and dishonoring of the struggles of those ancestors who for generations fought for basic freedoms, including in The Bahamas for majority rule.

Those who refuse to exercise their right to vote for cavalier and unreflective reasons, do a disservice to the witness of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Bahamian men and women freedom fighters, and protestors around the world today for whom the right to vote is a democratic gift not to be taken lightly nor for granted.

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

Dec 27, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

REFLECTIONS: Sir Clifford Darling Recalls Historic 1967 General Election in The Bahamas

REFLECTIONS: Sir Clifford Recalls Historic ‘67 Elections


By Candia Dames -
Nassau, The Bahamas



In 1962, women voted in The Bahamas for the first time, but Sir Clifford Darling, who was among the 18 PLPs who won seats in the historic general election five years later, believes that many of those women voted for the white Bay Street Boys simply because they found them to be good looking.

The white minority at the time was also preaching the message that blacks couldn’t govern themselves.

Nevertheless, he said, change was in the air.

"We were very disappointed when we did not win the ‘62 elections, so we went back to the drawing board," recalled Sir Clifford, now 85.

"In ‘62 while we were campaigning to win the election at Clifford Park, the Bay Street Boys were Over-the-Hill buying votes."

After the disappointing election of ‘62, Sir Clifford said the PLP wasn’t the only ones who went back to the drawing board; the Bay Street Boys did so as well, plotting how they would stay in power.

But the days of the oligarchy were numbered.

Sir Clifford remembers, "It was a long struggle."

Sir Clifford, a former president of The Bahamas Taxi Cab Union, said the union played a crucial role in bringing about majority rule in the country 40 years ago.

A bit weary of island life in 1943, Sir Clifford – an Acklins boy – left New Providence and headed to the United States, but experienced another round of discrimination.

Upon his return to The Bahamas in 1946, he said he decided that something had to be done to break the system that existed in his home country.

It was at this time he joined the Taxi Cab Union because "it was the only organization in The Bahamas that was not afraid of the Bay Street Boys".

"I spent eight years educating taxi drivers that we have to change the status quo," he said.

By 1957, Sir Clifford had become president of the union and used the organization to push the cause for black Bahamians to become first class citizens in their country.

"There were problems all over The Bahamas where blacks were treated unfairly. Blacks couldn’t go through some of the front doors of the churches," he recalled. "They couldn’t get good jobs; they couldn’t eat in the restaurants on Bay Street."

Despite the push for equality, Sir Clifford said there was little progress initially and the majority continued to be oppressed by the minority. But with 1958 came the general strike, which he said paved the way for majority rule.

"I’m happy to see today that things changed because it was disturbing to me and many Bahamians when, because of the colour of your skin, you couldn’t get good jobs, even though you were qualified," he said.

On January 10, 1967, Sir Clifford and 17 other PLPs won seats in the House of Assembly, and the so-called Bay Street Boys won 18.

Sir Clifford said that when it had become clear that the PLP had persuaded Randol Foulkes and Alvin Braynen to throw their support behind the party, "It was a glorious moment for Bahamians."

"When we were defeated in ‘62, I was pretty sure we were going to win that election and I went down Bay Street – and they all know me – and they started laughing at me after we lost, so when we won in ‘67 I put on my best suit and I went down Bay Street and I said ‘Now, let them laugh at me now’," Sir Clifford said.

"It was a good feeling. For over 300 years the minority were ruling the majority, and I knew that that was wrong, so when it came to pass that the PLP won and we had majority rule, I was very happy and I give God thanks for that."

Forty years after the struggle for majority rule was won, Sir Clifford said blacks in The Bahamas have come "a long, long way" as have white Bahamians.

"Many of the whites told me that when the PLP came on the scene they were happy because there were just a few of the Bay Street Boys who were making a good living, and they monopolized most all of the businesses," he said.

"So when the PLP came on the scene [more] whites could make a decent living as well as the blacks."

Forty years after the struggle for majority rule was won, Sir Clifford said he is also disturbed by the behaviour of many young Bahamians, particularly the young men, many of whom are ending up at Her Majesty’s Prison.

These are Bahamians who should be leading productive lives and making their contributions toward building The Bahamas, said Sir Clifford, who noted that there were 60 homicides in 2006.

"We need to find a way of curtailing this crime," he said. "We need to find where these guns are coming from and we need to find a way to prevent the amount of illegal immigrants who are coming into the country. This is not doing good for the country, really."

Sir Clifford said if the illegal immigration problem is not adequately addressed, one day illegal immigrants would take over the country.

"And Bahamians would be second class citizens all over again," he said.

10 January 2007

Bahamas Blog International

Caribbean Blog International

Election time in the Bahamas: ...the 2012 election promises to be worse than any we have ever been through, and reporters will have to hone their investigative skills to avoid the traps as they dig for the truth

A political plot without foundation


tribune242 editorial


ELECTION TIME in the Bahamas is often referred to as "silly season", a time when a citizen takes what he hears with a large grain of salt. As any reporter will tell you, it is not only "silly season", but it is also a very difficult period for a journalist to cover. So much time is wasted sifting fact from fiction that little time is left to report on ideas and programmes that could move the nation "forward, upward and onward".

However, the 2012 election promises to be worse than any we have ever been through, and reporters will have to hone their investigative skills to avoid the traps as they dig for the truth.

The PLP is now urging young Bahamians to bring their voices to the national stage by taking part in the country's first ever participatory journalism project. They are invited to report from their homes and streets using cell phones and cameras. This is fine, but at the receiving end -- and before it is put out for public dissemination - there has to be an experienced person checking for accuracy.

Anyone watching news reports of the troubles in the Middle East, reported by Twitter and cell phones, and broadcast by the international networks, were always cautioned that the man in the street was the source and that the reports could not be checked by the networks for accuracy. In other words, listener you are receiving information, but beware -- it might not all be true. No journalistic standards had been employed. And for the uninitiated, who might think otherwise, there is more to journalism than just fact gathering. Those facts have to be verified -- checked and double checked.

One would be surprised at the number of tips The Tribune receives that by the time the "facts" have been checked and the exaggeration and opinions stripped from the information, a story is published -- but not exactly the one reported by the telephone caller.

And so if Twitter, Facebook and other social media are to enter this election with raw information, there is going to be a lot of public confusion, and trained journalists will have a mammoth job chasing up these reports to find out how many are accurate, and how many have to be debunked as cheap propaganda.

For example, when we walked into The Tribune yesterday afternoon, there were two journalists in animated conversation. We joined them.

They were sceptical about a report that had been making the rounds all day and which they knew in the end would bring negative results. Knowing the parties involved, they could find no benefits in it being true for either party -- the FNM or DNA. If true, it would create a mountainous credibility problem for the DNA, a problem that Mr McCartney could not tolerate.

The story that we walked into apparently emanated from a rejected DNA candidate, who was now shaking the dust off his feet as he left a party in which he no longer had faith.

According to him -- with the story gathering many new layers in its repeated telling -- Bran McCartney of the DNA and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham were in huddled talks, resulting in Mr McCartney surrendering his party at the feet of the Prime Minister. Of course, there was a price. Mr McCartney would not be prime minister as yet, but he would be a stepping stone nearer his goal. In an FNM government, Bran McCartney would be deputy prime minister. And current deputy prime minister Brent Symonette? He would get the proverbial boot, of course.

Like our senior reporter, when considering the source of the tall tale, knowing the temperament of the Prime Minister, and what we believe we know of Mr McCartney, we did not give credit to any part of the story. But our reporters could not shrug their shoulders and laugh. It was their job to investigate.

Prime Minister Ingraham denied the story. And so did Mr McCartney, but the PLP clung to it almost as if they were delighted to have at last found a political life line.

Of course, they want voters to believe it is true to discredit the integrity of the DNA, and give the impression that the FNM is crumbling and is leaning on the DNA for support.

According to the PLP, Mr McCartney and the FNM are hatching a plot "designed to fool Bahamian voters into believing the DNA is something new and providing cover for Ingraham's fading support".

It is true that political plots are being hatched -- many of them -- but this far-fetched tale is not one to be taken seriously.

December 21, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

“Many voters have fallen out of love with Hubert Ingraham... but the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) should not be fooled into believing they have fallen back in love with Perry Christie.”

A reformed leader?

2007 issues still linger for Christie

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

Nearly five years after the leadership of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) commissioned a post-election survey, the ability of the PLP to win the next general election may very well depend on whether it has addressed the perceptions and shortcomings highlighted in the report.

This notwithstanding the bitter taste many voters have developed for the current administration of Hubert Ingraham.

As one politico remarked recently, “Many voters have fallen out of love with Hubert Ingraham, but the PLP should not be fooled into believing they have fallen back in love with Perry Christie.”

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner report set out what the reasons were for the PLP’s stunning loss in the 2007 general election.

It revealed that 57 percent of respondents cited former Prime Minister Perry Christie’s perceived ‘weak leadership’ as the reason they decided not to vote PLP.

The ‘weak leadership’ issue was widely discussed before and after the election campaign, with Ingraham stating repeatedly that the 2007 election was about leadership. 
The survey said the alleged scandals that plagued the PLP leading up to the vote took their toll.

The report highlighted the perception of scandal within the PLP ranks as well as the perception that the leader of the PLP, Perry Christie, is considered a weak leader.

Almost five years later, the question in the minds of some voters is whether the PLP has carried out any of the reforms the report recommended.

The report is still important because we are on the eve of another general election.

If the PLP is to be victorious at the polls, one would expect it to show that it has a strong, decisive leader and that its party and candidates are of impeccable character and credibility.

Valentine Grimes, a trustee of the PLP, suggested the party has the right mix to form the next government, and to successfully carry out its mandate.

Asked whether Christie has put in place any reforms in the years in opposition — the years since the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner report — Grimes said Christie was always a strong leader, and that it was the FNM’s successful public relations efforts that painted him as weak and indecisive.

Grimes said the ‘weak leader’ impression was also formed in the minds of many as a result of ineffective public relations by the PLP ahead of the last general election.

“The PR team of the FNM was able to completely retool the image of Ingraham,” Grimes told National Review.  “Whereas on the other side, they were able to effectively paint Christie in a particular light.  Unfortunately, those perceptions were difficult to overcome during that last election.”

Grimes said there is no doubt in his mind that Christie has the interest of The Bahamas foremost in all of his decisions.

“And the fact that he thinks and tries to get the views of others, I think is an important part of his character,” Grimes said.  “Whereas on the other hand there is no doubt in my mind that Prime Minister Ingraham does not seek the views of his ministers and if he does, he does not frequently take those views into consideration.

“It’s his government and his government alone.”

But while some political observers think Ingraham’s recent firing of Kenneth Russell from his Cabinet spelt trouble in the FNM, others think it demonstrated his strength and decision-making process.

Remaking Christie

Former PLP Chairman Raynard Rigby said no one should be fooled about what the main issue in the upcoming election will be, and that is the choice between Ingraham and Christie, which leader the voters like more or which leader the voters believe can move the country forward.

Rigby said he does not see where the party has adequately addressed the issues raised in the Greenberg report.

“Well, certainly not in the public domain,” he said.   “If they have done so, they may have done it within the internal ranks of the party.

“The report is now in the public domain.  One would expect the party to address the glaring issues raised in the report, particularly the perception of corruption, the perception about the leader’s weakness and also this question the party has in gaining support within certain age groups.”

Rigby pointed out that in politics, perceptions do matter.

Forty-seven percent of respondents to the Greenberg 2007 survey said they did not vote PLP because of corruption and scandals, and 19 percent pointed specifically to the issue involving former Immigration Minister Shane Gibson and the late American celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (respondents were allowed to select the two factors they thought were the most important for deciding not to vote PLP). The survey said the corruption issue contributed to the perception of Christie as a weak leader.

“Voters perceived that he was unwilling to take action against advisers or Cabinet officials accused of wrongdoing, an impression that was reinforced by the delay over Shane Gibson’s resignation,” Greenberg found.

The 2007 report said that given the focus on the leadership of the parties, the PLP’s success will depend to a large degree on rebuilding Christie’s public image with a strategy that shows voters he can be a forceful, decisive leader.

Ingraham on many occasions accused Christie of lacking discipline, foresight, competence and decisiveness.

Rigby told National Review that it is important that voters can see reform in PLP ranks.

“Politics is about a public display of where you are.  It’s not a private matter.  It’s really a public thing and certainly I have not seen it,” Rigby said.

“I think the election will also be a telling sign of whether the Bahamian people believe that the PLP has responded to what they deem their concerns were which led them to vote against the party in the 2007 general election.”

Many people say though that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose elections, Rigby noted.

“But I’m sure that if the PLP wins the next election it means that they would be satisfied that they would have done sufficiently enough to gain the support and trust of the majority of the electorate to form the government,” he said.

 

Rebuilding the PLP’s image

The report highlighted steps that the party should take to rebrand its image, so as to gain the confidence of the Bahamian electorate.

It recommended expanding the party's base; cleansing the party’s reputation; conveying former Prime Minister Christie’s leadership qualities and advancing a progressive social agenda.

“It needs to take concrete actions that convey its seriousness about purging corruption from the party and state," said the report.

“There is a perception among voters — one deepened by the FNM (Free National Movement) — that the PLP has become more focused on doing things that benefit its own politicians than for people.”

It’s a claim now Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham made repeatedly on the campaign trail in the months and weeks leading up to the 2007 election.  Ingraham also accused Christie of presiding over “the most chaotic, last-minute, indecisive and incompetent government since independence”.

“The Christie administration is the poster boy for failed governance.  They have plunged our country into chaos," Ingraham said at a rally at R. M. Bailey Park on April 27, 2007.  “Mr. Christie’s PLP is besieged by scandal and incompetence.  They have lost the will and capacity to fix their own mistakes, or maybe they never had it.”

The researchers said they could not overstate the importance of cleansing the PLP’s reputation.

“It goes to the heart of people’s concerns about the PLP, and must be seriously addressed with concrete action,” the report said.

The report also said there are a number of things the party could do to show the public it takes corruption seriously: develop and publicize a party code of conduct that prohibits its leaders from exploiting public office for private gain and institute a party tribunal that is authorized to investigate allegations of corruption against party members and to recommend penalties.

In opposition, there is no evidence that those specific steps have been taken.

Former PLP MP Franklyn Wilson told National Review that “there is no doubt that there are large numbers of Bahamians who see Mr. Christie in negative terms”.

“I think if Mr. Christie is going to be true to himself, he needs to see that as what it is,” Wilson said.

“…But the fact of the matter is this campaign is going to allow people to see a lot of the image that Ingraham has is not supported in fact.”

Wilson said international credit rating agencies have pointed to the importance of consensus building in putting in place the types of reforms that are necessary to get the economy back on track.

“If that is true, what at another time was seen as a weakness on Christie’s part, can be re-presented as a strength,” he said.

Dec 19, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...exactly why was Ken Russell fired from Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham's Cabinet?

Cabinet rules that led to firing

By LARRY SMITH



WELL, this is all very confusing, isn’t it?

Just before an election the leader of the FNM gets into a nomination spat with a three-time successful candidate in one of the party’s Grand Bahama strongholds.

The 58-year-old candidate is a Cabinet minister, who has complained publicly about changes to the boundaries of his High Rock constituency, recently redrawn as East Grand Bahama. And in quick time, he is sacked from the Cabinet and starts behaving like Tennyson Wells – right before the election.

So what is this all about? Where does party business end and government business begin in this political squabble? And exactly why was Ken Russell fired?

Social media websites were deluged over the weekend with questions and opinions on these unusual developments. Most of those comments, and much newspaper coverage as well, focused on the nomination issue, and the supposed rift between “original” FNMs and so-called “Ingrahamites”, who joined the party after 1990.

For example, Ivan Johnson in The Punch said the controversy revolved around Russell’s “gross disrespect” of Ingraham over the nomination issue. And tensions were so high at a meeting in Grand Bahama on Sunday, The Punch said, that a special security detail had to accompany the prime minister.

This was denied to me by individuals who attended the packed meeting in Freeport, and an online video of Ingraham’s remarks showed no evidence of dissent or hostility amongst the exuberant crowd of FNM supporters, despite Ken Russell’s obvious presence in the audience.

“The PM has enraged the Cecilite FNMs with his cold and harsh treatment” of Ken Russell, Kendal Wright and Verna Grant, The Punch wrote on Monday. Meanwhile, Russell had earlier told the Freeport News he did not know why he was fired. Branding Ingraham a “tyrant”, he said he would seek to run in the next election anyway.

However, insiders say the sacking had little to do with Russell’s attempt to hold onto the FNM nomination, or to any disagreement over the redrawing of constituency boundaries. He was fired because he publicly opposed a Cabinet decision.

Under our system of government, ministers must support in public the collective judgment of the government and their Cabinet colleagues. A minister who cannot support a major government policy is expected to resign. Or face dismissal by the prime minister.

This is clearly spelled out in The Manual on Cabinet Procedure: “A fundamental principle of Cabinet government is unity. It is important to present a united front to the public. If any minister feels conscientiously unable to support a decision taken by Cabinet, he has one course open to him and that is to resign his office.”

And in a telling comment to The Tribune by Maurice Moore – one of the original so-called “Cecilites” and the former parliamentary representative for High Rock – “Russell didn’t handle the matter correctly.”

In fact, the reason for Ken Russell’s firing goes back to the waning months of the Christie administration, when the government received a proposal from an American company known as Beka Development. Beka reportedly wanted to acquire 64,000 acres in east Grand Bahama at a concessionary price of $2,800 per acre.

According to Sir Arthur Foulkes, writing in The Tribune in March 2007, “Mr Christie and his colleagues in the PLP government must have taken leave of their senses even to entertain such a proposal. But it is obvious that preliminary talks have taken place and that Beka has been encouraged to proceed.”

Since then, Beka has turned its attentions to the island of Eleuthera, where it is supposedly pursuing a multi-million-dollar project on privately owned pristine coastline at South Point. This project is opposed by environmentalists, and last summer Beka said its failure to advance the Grand Bahama project was also due to environmental issues, “and the fact that 80 per cent of the required land was government-owned”.

Meanwhile, the original east Grand Bahama project seems to have morphed into something else. Last year, The Tribune reported that a mysterious company called “the Cylin Group, whose principals include the daughter of the Chinese defence minister, was looking at a major tourism development on 2,000 acres of land in the Sharp Rock area”.

This project was said to include hotels, a casino, a cruiseship terminal and a marina to be built by Chinese companies. Most of the land was said to be owned by the Grand Bahama Development Corp (Devco) and the Port Group. Devco is half owned by the Port Group and half by Hutchinson Whampoa, a Chinese company.

Insiders say that after the FNM took office in May 2007 the Grand Bahama Port Authority told government it had not agreed to transfer any land to Cylin, and subsequent inquiries as to where the money for the project was coming from were not favourable. “Nevertheless, the government gave the project the benefit of the doubt and allowed it to come before Cabinet, where it was voted down on four separate occasions.”

In Ingraham’s own words, “we would like to have any kind of project in Grand Bahama, but we also want to do things that we think make sense and not everybody who comes along and says we’ve got something is somebody who we could trust”. He added that Russell promoted the project in public even though it had been rejected by the government four times.

On Monday, Russell admitted as much to The Freeport News. He said he was working with investors seeking to do a $1.5 billion development on Grand Bahama. He acknowledged that the investors had applied to the Port Authority for land but their request had been turned down. Very little is known about this proposed project or the developers themselves.

The nomination issue is a separate matter, insiders say. This is apparently a case of the FNM leadership trying to recruit fresh talent to revitalise the party ahead of an election. However, there are those who argue that the Cabinet rules issue was a pretext to get rid of Russell, an ineffective minister who was obstinately refusing to step down as a candidate despite an earlier undertaking to do so.

In this context, there is no doubt that the FNM leadership has the biggest say in deciding the slate of election candidates. According to the party’s constitution, candidates are recommended by the executive committee (chaired by the party leader), after consultation with constituency associations. The recommendations are then ratified by the FNM council, which is also chaired by the party leader.

“I met with the High Rock, now East Grand Bahama, Constituency Association earlier this afternoon,” Ingraham told the crowd in Freeport on Sunday, “and invited them to put forward the names of at least two candidates that you could consider to carry your party’s flag for East Grand Bahama in the next election, and I expect to hear from them in short order.”

He added that some sitting FNM members of parliament will resign of their own volition and others will be asked to make way for new candidates.

The subtext to all this is the future of the Grand Bahama Port Authority itself – a private franchise with enormous value for the country as a whole. Insiders say that the island’s economic woes combined with the Port Authority’s lack of direction creates a huge dilemma for the government, which does not want to be seen as intervening heavy-handedly in private enterprise, abrogating the Hawksbill Creek Agreement or pre-empting the courts.

But at the meeting on Sunday Ingraham put the GBPA on notice. “After the next election we will say to the Port Authority, this or that. And so it will be very much a question of Grand Bahama’s future in the next general election, which will take place not long from now.” It is not clear what he meant, and Ingraham declined to elaborate for me.

Meanwhile, the opposition PLP is said to be working assiduously behind the scenes to get disgruntled FNM’s to run for the PLP or cross the floor and support a vote of no confidence in the government. This would presumably force the prime minister to dissolve parliament, after which a general election must be held within 90 days.

If this does not happen the government can constitutionally continue in office until May 2 (the date of the 2007 election), when parliament must be dissolved and an election held within 90 days. So theoretically, the prime minister has until the end of July to hold elections, although most observers believe a February poll is more likely.

Of course, most observers believed a November election was in the cards too.


• What do you think? Send comments to larry@tribunemedia.net, or visit bahamapundit.

December 15, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International