What all Bahamians must remember is anything is possible at election time if the people are interested and open to making the change they desire... We vote in governments...We vote them out... No party or leader is guaranteed anything on election day... We must work hard during these upcoming weeks to ensure that the best government for The Bahamas is chosen

Voting time nears

thenassauguardian editorial

The parties are almost ready, and most of the country is too, for the next general election.  Though the prime minister has until May to call the vote, it is expected that he will do so before then.  Based on the work that has already been done, it would be reasonable to assume that an election will be held sometime between February and March.  If not, it would be soon after.  If you didn’t already know, we are now in election season.

Based on the registration numbers thus far, more Bahamians will be eligible to vote in 2012 than the 150,000 on the voting list in 2007.  Included in that eligible voter number are the bases of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM).  For whatever reasons, these people will vote for the party they are aligned to regardless of who it selects as candidates and regardless of who leads it.

The swing voters, who change their minds from time to time, will largely determine the next government.

For the swing voters who are undecided or confused, we offer a few simple suggestions to help in your evaluation process.

It would be wise to initially define what you think are the biggest problems facing the country.  Once this is done, examine the records of the parties on those issues.  The leaders of the PLP and the FNM have been around a long time.  They have clear track records on issues such as job creation and crime management.  It does not take much thinking or research to evaluate the performance of each of the main parties, and their leaders, on issues of national concern.

What must then be analyzed is leadership itself.  In the Westminster system in developing countries, significant power is concentrated in the hands of prime ministers.  The man you elect would need to be competent, fair, energetic and enough of a visionary to help lift the country from its current malaise.

Does the leader inspire you?  Do you think he cares about the country, or does he just want to be prime minister?  Will he listen to the people once he is elected?  Is the team around him competent?  These are just some of the questions that should be considered.

Now, we mentioned the PLP and FNM.  There is also a ‘third party’ in the race – that is, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).  Its leader is a one-term member of Parliament.  What must be considered here is whether he and the members of his party are ready to govern.

We have discussed the macro-level of voting thus far, but another approach can be taken.  There will be 38 constituency races.  While many Bahamians vote for party or leader, it is just as reasonable to vote for the person you think best to represent you, your community and your interests.

Voting for party, leader or candidate is fine once the decision is a considered one.  Voters should not just place their Xs next to candidates from particular parties because of, for example, family history.

To those who are disheartened by the choices before us this electoral cycle, do not become apathetic.  Look closely before you decide not to vote.  If none of the main players interest you, consider the lesser ones.  Not voting should always be a last option.

What all Bahamians must remember is anything is possible at election time if the people are interested and open to making the change they desire.  We vote in governments.  We vote them out.  No party or leader is guaranteed anything on election day.  We must work hard during these upcoming weeks to ensure that the best government for The Bahamas is chosen.  And when this is done, we must work just as hard to ensure that the people who make up that government do what they were elected to do.

Jan 03, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The politicians and the politics of the 1990s -- even of 2007 -- are obsolete... And as far as the politics of The Bahamas is concerned, both of our long-standing parties have seemed comfortable with the formula bequeathed to us by our colonial forefathers; a pepper-pot of traditionalism in some areas and a discourse of modernisation in others -- a dish which has resulted in the gradual disintegration of the Bahamian middle class over the last decade in the face of a global economy in transition, concentrating wealth more and more in fewer peoples' hands

Making the case for a national political debate

By JOEY GASKINS

EXPLICITLY, my intention is to present an argument for why I believe this election season requires a debate between the leaders of the three most visible political parties.

There are, I would argue, questions that remain concerning the lack of any pronounced or marked ideological difference between these three parties, and in these difficult times the Bahamas needs thoughtful and critical leadership.

Public debate should enrich the political process and supply Bahamians with varying and alternative imaginings of our possibilities as nation. It seems clear to me that the level of public debate in The Bahamas cannot adequately answer this challenge.

As a bonus, I hope this piece will also serve as an indictment of politics as usual in the Bahamas and an appeal directed especially at young voters. Those with influence often accuse us of apathy while simultaneously shirking responsibility for our current condition.

I fear that we will follow in their footsteps -- deifying political leaders and being baptised in red, yellow or green (or whatever the colours of the day are) on the altar of our own political immaturity. This is not the time to reify that tradition; we know now where that path leads. Look around you.

Bahamians have unfortunately been let down by a great deal of our erstwhile political pundit class, many of whom seem, quite frankly, bitter. A number of these political commentators betray what can only be described as hurt feelings and personal vendettas in their writing and on the radio.

In turn they've become the spin doctors of choice for their patron political parties, making house calls even. I'm certainly skeptical that they can be relied on to provide non-partisan opinions and I've long since rid myself of the expectation that this particular sphere of influence will ever mount a meaningful challenge to the status quo.

Colin A Hughes reminds us in his book, Race and Politics in the Bahamas, during the run-up to the 1967 election, the two most read papers in the Bahamas, The Tribune and The Nassau Guardian, both seemed to support the ruling United Bahamian Party (UBP).

These days there is no white supremacist regime that must be challenged. Instead, the status quo is represented by the uncritical and empty party politics that characterises our electoral contests.

As the revolutionary theorist, Antonio Gramsci, makes clear, there are two types of intellectuals: those who align with emergent, new intellectual and social forces, and those who work to maintain the old. The Bahamas has more than its fair share of the latter.

Facebook has seemingly provided an opportunity for more democratic political debate. However, upon closer inspection, you realise that only a few people are actually speaking.

The walls for Bahamian political Facebook groups are dominated by a small fraction of the members, most of whom are vehemently partisan mouth pieces for their team of choice.

I use the word "team" carefully, because many Bahamians treat political parties like they would a sport team -- counting who had the most people at the home game, idolising the star quarterback, comparing the roster and trash talking.

Most sports teams are devoid of ideology and I would argue our political parties are as well. For the majority of Bahamians, I would imagine that this doesn't matter; what counts is which team scores the winning touchdown. We've yet to learn that in this kind of a game everyone loses.
Sadly, referencing Hughes' book, you will quickly learn that in the early years of the 20th century the Bahamian electorate viewed the election season as a chance to get something for nothing -- then it was rum and rice. What is now, a free T-shirt and a Christmas ham?

When, as made clear by the Bahamian Wikileaks, our politicians are comfortable claiming that "free paraphernalia" is one of the most important factors in winning an election, this particular piece of history becomes significant.

Hughes' also remarks that for politicians, elections amounted to nothing more than sporting events, a game between peers carried out over generations. Ninety plus years later and things seems remarkably the same. Maybe it's an age thing but when politicians shout, "Come on down," at each other across the parliamentary aisle I can't help but think of "The Price is Right."

The lack of universal participation on Facebook may be because of apathy, but I've observed another possible explanation: outsiders and disagreeable opinions are not welcome.

In preparation for this article I decided to engage in some informal ethnographic research. I even participated in the discussion on few posts as an independent voter.

In one particular instance, my intervention was not appreciated. According to one of the regulars, my point of view apparently violated the "wisdom of God." And when I pointed out the wisdom of God, as espoused by man, has been used by man to inflict pain and suffering, no less on our own ancestors, things got ugly.

The good Christian who originally countered my argument Biblically, called me everything but a child of God, blocked me and apparently continued insulting me so that I could not respond. Meanwhile, others rushed to the post, and with a click of the "Like" button and "lol" in repetition, they patted each other on their virtual backs for maintaining a comfortable level of ignorance and aggressively defending business as usual.

This perhaps provides some insight: even on Facebook, where the access to political debate has been democratised, only certain people get to speak about certain things, and only in certain ways. There is no space on the Bahamian political landscape for alternative political discourses and few have been brave enough to try and make space.

Go off the reservation, show the ruptures of illogicality in age-old political wisdom, the senselessness in so-called political common sense, and face a collective wrath.

You can dare to question the status-quo but know that at the very least you and possibly your family will be blocked, insulted and laughed at. This is something made intelligible after my last article for this paper. My untraditional (dare I say un-Bahamian) position on homosexuality cost a family member a job opportunity. None of this makes for meaningful, respectful or productive debate, does it?

How then can a national political debate transform the grim picture I've just painted?

Honestly, it can't. But, it is a step in the right direction. Against my better judgment, I want to suggest that if anyone should be responsible for showing the Bahamian people how to conduct the kind of political debates necessary for us arrive at the best political conclusion for our country, it is our political leaders.

A nationally televised, internet streamed, radio broadcast of our two seasoned political leaders and the firebrand new contender debating policy, defining differences in ideology and comparing visions of the Bahamian future is beneficial for all, especially the Bahamian people.

I know I'm not alone when I say that I'm interested in hearing what our hopeful leaders have to offer, outside of the theatrics of adversarial parliamentary posturing and away from the throngs of adoring fans. Despite the fact that some political leaders believe they must no longer compete for their inevitable ascendancy, that they are tried and tested, these are new and unusual times.

The politicians and the politics of the 1990s -- even of 2007 -- are obsolete. And as far as the politics of the Bahamas is concerned, both of our long-standing parties have seemed comfortable with the formula bequeathed to us by our colonial forefathers, a pepper-pot of traditionalism in some areas and a discourse of modernisation in others -- a dish which has resulted in the gradual disintegration of the Bahamian middle class over the last decade in the face of a global economy in transition, concentrating wealth more and more in fewer peoples' hands.

This is also not the most opportune time for a greenhorn politician to stake a leadership claim with a less than impressive political resume. The simple answer would be to say the Bahamas needs a new politician or a new political party, when in actuality what I think we need is a new politics. I am left unconvinced that, in what has become a politics plagued by ego, we should suffer yet another political contender asserting his dominion over our government with an air of entitlement.

Prime Minister Ingraham could once and for all show the truth of the Free National Movement's record, and himself as a man of action. Mr Christie could mount a clear opposition to the FNM, and set out a bold vision for the Bahamas as imagined by the Progressive Liberal Party. It would also benefit Mr McCartney, who could finally show all of those who doubt him that he can contend on the national level and that Democratic National Alliance's promises of hope for the Bahamian people are not empty.

Not only is it time for Prime Minister Ingraham, Mr Christie and Mr. McCartney to explain why any of them should be allowed to stand at our country's helm in these rough waters, but it is time for the people of this country to require it of them. In the past, we've failed to hold our leaders truly accountable.

When the Prime Minister feels it is within his right to say that the new contender won't be carrying "his tings" anywhere, the Bahamian people must necessarily retort, "Tell us why you think you'll be carrying our tings anywhere?"

When the leader of the opposition places the blame for our country's current economic condition squarely on the shoulders of the sitting government, the Bahamian people must necessarily inquire, "How does your partisan rhetoric square with the reality of a global economic downturn, and what exactly would you do differently?"

When the dewy political newcomer promises change and hope, the Bahamian people must necessarily interrogate - "How do you intend to deliver given the greenness of you and your party -- a hastily stitched together team of entrants -- and what can you offer that will change the game?"

And, when the only difference between the various parties seem to be colour scheme and personality, aren't we really choosing between parties intent on steering us basically down the same path, perhaps some more vigorously than others?

To echo a ghost from the Bahamian political past, and referencing Hughes' book yet again, in 1971 the youthful Vanguard Nationalist and Socialist Party (VNSP) wrote of the PLP, "The lack of a basic and coherent political philosophy ...has been a major factor in its failure ...to correct the abuses of Bahamian society by the wealthy few, to create genuine political and economic opportunity."

When it comes to politics, in the same way the media and the electorate have remained seemingly unchanged decades later, I would argue that the charge levied against the PLP in 1971 is true of all our political parties today. You may not like the source but they had a point then and they have point now.

What we have here is not a failure to communicate but a history of neglect concerning the Bahamian political consciousness by the Bahamian political elite -- neglect that, in the end, benefits them. It's time we do something differently.

They say a people deserves its leaders. If that is true, it begs the question, what kind of a people are we?

Post-1973 Bahamians have often shown themselves to be a people divided by frivolous considerations like loyalty to political parties with no clear ideological direction and politicians that are scandal ridden, self-indulgent and entitled.

Because of our inability to unite around holding our political leaders accountable, those whose interests are contrary to the welfare of the Bahamian working and middle classes often succeed in having those interests met.

I hate to use polemical and loaded phrases like "ruling class" and "foreign interests," but as Bahamians battle each other over an ever-widening terrain, even on virtual socialscapes like Facebook, it is the Bahamian bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and foreign interests that benefit from this distraction.

Our leaders should be the ones fighting -- warring for our trust and confidence, crusading for our well-being. Until we demand that our government and the opposition speak to their value outside of the comfortable, staged events of political rallies and the "Real Politicians of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas" docudrama that is our parliament proceedings (divas, cat fights and all), those of us who the government should serve -- the people -- will find ourselves left fighting over whatever gets tossed our way. And sadly, at this moment, there's not much to go around.

Joey Gaskins is a graduate of Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY with a BA in Politics. He was born in Grand Bahama and is currently studying at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where he has attained his MSc in Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies and has begun a Doctoral Degree in Sociology. Joey also writes for the Bahamas Weekly and the Nassau Liberal.

December 30, 2011

tribune242

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

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