A National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme would only work efficiently if, and only if, there are proper checks and balances in place ...especially to ensure that the pool of money goes in to a segregated fund for health and health alone...

The National Health Insurance debate

CFAL Economic view

We read recently in a local daily that Dr. Perry Gomez, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) candidate for North Andros and the Berry Islands said that under a PLP government National Health Insurance (NHI) would be implemented within the first year of coming to office.  While we are in the so-called ‘silly season’ and everyone and their brother are making promises, we would hope that some of the promises would be well reasoned outlining the attended cost and consequences for the wider community; the usual rhetoric is just not acceptable this time around.  We believe that members of the Bahamian electorate are a bit more discerning than most politicians give them credit for.

What is NHI?

The issue of a National Health Insurance was first raised back in August 2002, when then Prime Minister Perry Christie appointed a 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission to review the feasibility of a National Health Insurance Plan.  The committee was also mandated to determine the best way to make affordable healthcare available to all residents.  The appointment of the committee was a step towards the fulfillment of the then government’s promise to ensure that all patients receive the same access to healthcare regardless of their personal wealth or circumstances as outlined in the PLP’s manifesto, ‘Our Plan’.  In 2004, the final report was released.  It was the view of the committee that The Bahamas cannot afford to not have a National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme.  The committee also stated that NHI had to be mandatory and would only work if the government had adequate funding.   We have no difficulty agreeing with those observations but would urge the authorities and the public to take a closer and more objective look at the proposal.

What is National Health Insurance?  National Health Insurance is a form of social health insurance, which uses the principles of fund pooling and risk sharing to provide equity in access to care.  Individuals pay an ‘affordable’ amount on a consistent basis and in return are able to have their healthcare needs provided for, regardless of cost.

It is envisioned that this ‘cradle to the grave’ national healthcare coverage will cover persons who are currently excluded from private insurance plans such as individuals with pre-existing illnesses, newborn babies and those over 65.

The 125-page NHI report outlined the following eight specific recommendations for the Cabinet’s consideration:

1. National Health Insurance should be universal.

2. Legislation should stipulate the health insurance is compulsory for all residents.

3. National Health Insurance should be administered by the National Insurance Board.

4. A comprehensive benefits package should be offered.

5. Contributions should be set at a rate which is affordable for the majority.

6. Public and private providers should be offered the opportunity to join the National Health Insurance system.

7. All provider payment mechanisms should be considered for use with capitation being the preferred option.  (Capitation is a provider payment mechanism in which providers are regularly paid a stipulated amount per person for whom they agree to provide services during a defined period of time.)

8. A percentage of revenues should be set aside for purposes that ensure the stability of National Health Insurance.

The present system in The Bahamas, which employed persons contribute to, is a form of social security.  Our health system includes tax-funded care through government hospitals and clinics, and private care funded by direct user fees or private insurers.  The incentives that exist include pension, invalidity assistance, medical incentives, maternity benefits, some income replacement, temporary and permanent disability benefits, and health coverage for occupational injuries.  Basically, social health insurance currently exists only through the industrial injury component of NIB.

Recently, the present government implemented the National Prescription Drug Plan to assist some Bahamian residents, particularly the elderly and children under the age of 18 years.  It is estimated that the cost of this program is currently running around $5 million; a figure which we expect to only increase in the future.

Healthcare costs are one of the more vexing and challenging issues facing countries today and according to the latest information on the subject, average cost in the last five years increased annually by more than 10 percent.  With rapidly aging populations and the rising costs of modern medical technology, governments everywhere are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the funds required to meet healthcare needs of their respective populations.  Given that position, we would hope that before any decision is made to move forward with universal health coverage, the authorities would prepare a detailed cost analysis to use as a guide.  To do otherwise, we run the risk of committing to something which could surely place The Bahamas on an irreversible path to economic poverty.

Prior to 2008, it was estimated that only 51 percent of Bahamians had private health insurance.  Today, given the challenging global economic environment, the impact on the local economy and increasing levels of unemployment, we estimate that number at around 40 percent based on the increasing payouts by insurance companies.  For some, private insurance has become too expensive; persons in the lower income bracket and those living on the Family Islands are now less likely to have insurance coverage.

There are a number of questions that need answers.  How much will this plan cost?  (Back in 2004 estimates were pegged around $200 million-plus, which we felt were too low at that time).  Who will pay for those who cannot afford to pay?  What will be the impact on the private insurance industry?  What impact will it have on the fiscal deficit?  (This should be of particular relevance to future generations).

Concerns remain

Historically, the Bahamian government has been a principal source of financing environmental and healthcare expenses for citizens of The Bahamas with an annual expenditure of over $267 million in the 2011/2012 budget or nearly 16 percent of total recurrent expenses which computes to almost four percent of the country revised GDP (another story for another day).

It is estimated that the private insurance companies spent nearly $230 million in 2011, which gives us a total healthcare expenditure bill of nearly $435 million or 5.4 percent of the revised GDP.  In the 2004/2005 fiscal budget, the government allocated approximately $187 million for health expenditure.  In 2004/2005 it was estimated that healthcare expenditure stood at approximately $340 million or 7.10 percent of GDP, of which $70 million was spent by the people, $102 million spent through private health insurance, and the rest by the government.  In comparison, in 1985, total public expenditure amounted to approximately $56 million or only 2.70 percent of GDP.

It is our view, based on historical cost data and future projections, that the cost of a national healthcare plan going forward would be in the region of $500 million to $750 million; equivalent to nearly half of our recurrent expenditure and as such, would not leave much room for other important infrastructure projects.

We generally agree with the conclusion of the commission’s report that a social health insurance system for The Bahamas would provide more equity in access to healthcare, more stable funding of public health costs, and fewer ‘free riders’, or people who benefit without contributing.  Setting up such a national healthcare system involves more than just taxing the people but will require legislation and the creation of responsible bodies.

Two critical issues are ensuring compliance and public accountability.  We are also mindful, however, that there are those who have little faith in governments operating such healthcare initiatives due to a propensity for such operations to become instruments of political patronage and the widely shared view that government institutions are relatively poorly managed.  In the last analysis, we believe that the scheme would only work efficiently if, and only if, there are proper checks and balances in place especially to ensure that the pool of money goes in to a segregated fund for health and health alone.

•CFAL is a sister company of The Nassau Guardian under the AF Holdings Ltd. umbrella. CFAL provides investment management, research, brokerage and pension services. For comments, please contact CFAL at: column@cfal.com

Mar 07, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamian voters expect more from the mainline press in terms of the key issues in this election... ...Will the national press rise to the occasion in terms of better political journalism and creative reporting of the 2012 general election?

Press coverage of election 2012

Front Porch

By Simon

So far, much of the coverage of the lead-up to the 2012 general election has been formulaic and insipid.  Most of the coverage has focused on the speeches at the opening of various constituency headquarters.

The speeches contain the typical red meat and thrust and parry one expects to hear at political rallies.  The press dutifully report the back and forth inclusive of the main points of the speeches particularly those of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.  Yet, there is something missing.

Both of the major parties have spoken of the critical issues of the economy and crime.  While voters often enjoy the polemics and pageantry of election time, most can distinguish between electioneering and what the outcome of the election will mean in terms of policy and governance.

There is a famous quote that notes that while politicians campaign in poetry, they must govern in prose.  Poetry involves the rhetorical flourish of a campaign.  Prose is concerned with the hard work of governance and getting things done.

While Perry Christie’s strong suit may be the art of rhetoric, it is Hubert Ingraham who has excelled at the art of governance.  Hence, the overriding theme of the election is leadership.  The question in the end for voters is, after comparing the leadership of Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham, who they believe can best lead in terms of the economy, crime and a complex of policy issues.

Useful

On the issue of crime, the Ingraham administration introduced a comprehensive crime agenda over the past five years including an omnibus package of crime legislation.  It would be a useful public service for the print and broadcast media to assess the details of the current government’s anti-crime measures.

The PLP has produced a booklet of its anti-crime measures and is running ads on the same.  The press should assess the details of the opposition’s approach to crime.  The press should also assess the anti-crime measures the PLP promised in its 2002 manifesto as well as the measures put in place by the Christie administration from 2002 to 2007.

As elections are about comparisons and choices, the press can assist voters by reporting how the anti-crime measures of the FNM and the PLP compare and contrast.  And, what of the record of both parties in terms of legislation enacted and policies introduced.

The press can do the same kind of comparisons and contrasts on the economy and a host of issues from land policy and immigration to healthcare and education.  This journal has editorialized that the opposition’s promise to double the national education budget is far-fetched and near-impossible.

The Nassau Guardian has also shown that the PLP’s claim to have produced 22,000 jobs from 2002 to 2007 is insupportable in terms of employment numbers produced by the Department of Statistics.

This journal also opined in the context of various programs proposed by the PLP:  “Coherent and plausible plans on crime and the economy actually do not need quirky names.  They simply need to work and have the will of a competent government behind them.”

This paper further noted: “When a party announces multiple named programs at every speaking engagement, and it does not explain how they would be paid for, who would lead them and if they have been fully planned out, that party could come across as less than serious.”

Proposals

The prime minister has also announced a number of new proposals that the FNM will introduce if it wins re-election.  These include a Sports Tourism Encouragement Act and a Summer Institute for boys leaving primary school for junior high.  Some enterprising reporter might be dispatched to find out more details about these proposals.

There has been some clamor for debates during the course of the upcoming electoral contest.  Why can’t such debates take place between representatives of the major parties sponsored by a media house such as The Nassau Guardian in collaboration with Cable 12?

One debate topic may be the economy and compare the approach of the PLP and the FNM on the global economic downturn as well as the future of the Bahamian economy.  Perhaps the Minister of State for Finance Zhivargo Laing can present for the FNM with Elizabeth MP Ryan Pinder, who has spoken repeatedly on economic issues, appearing for the PLP.

Independents and young voters tend to identify less with party labels and are not as interested in what might excite base voters.  The former voters are more influenced by the quality of leadership, a party’s record and realistic and creative proposals for the future.

Most voters have come to expect little from most talk radio shows and television chat shows in terms of in-depth and informed discussions of the issues.  Those programs are designed more to inflate and showcase the egos of their hosts.

Voters expect more from the mainline press in terms of the key issues in this election.  Will the national press rise to the occasion in terms of better political journalism and creative reporting of the 2012 general election?  Some attempts are being made in this direction.  Still, there is much work to be done.

 

• frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

Mar 06, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Money in Bahamian politics: ...There is no campaign finance legislation in The Bahamas ...and we submit that the time has come to consider changing this...

Financing political campaigns

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

Elections are more often bought than won.

– U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton

 

As the general election in The Bahamas approaches, there has been considerable discussion about the sources of political campaign finance.  One of the local tabloids has suggested that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is being funded by “unsavory characters”.  At one of the Free National Movement  (FNM) rallies, the prime minister is quoted as saying: “The PLP has plenty money!  And there is a reason they have plenty money.  The money they’ve got, we don’t want!  We’d rather be out than in if we have to use that kind of money!  Our hands are clean!”

Therefore this week, we would like to Consider This... should we be concerned where political parties receive their campaign contributions?

Campaign finance refers to funds that are raised and spent to promote candidates and political parties in election contests.  In modern democracies, such funds are not necessarily devoted exclusively to election campaigns. Political contributions are also used to finance issue campaigns in referenda, party activities and party organizations.

For the most part, however, in The Bahamas, political campaign finance is used to establish campaign headquarters at the constituency and national levels, to purchase party paraphernalia, including signage, pins, and flyers, to pay political consultants for polling and focus group activities, party manifestos, newspaper, radio and television commercials, constituency activities, travel to the Family Islands and for political rallies and concerts.

And, yes, political campaign finance is also used to purchase votes.  Although this is illegal, vote buying has been a feature of our political culture long before the establishment of the first political party in 1953.

Reasons for giving

There are many reasons why persons contribute to political campaigns.  The first and most obvious reason is that donors support the political positions, programs or personalities of one party over another and want to see that candidate and party win in order to implement those policies and programs.  In many cases, the donor’s intentions are noble and sincere and contribute to the strengthening of the democratic process.

Another reason for making a political contribution to a particular candidate or a party is to ingratiate oneself to both, in case the candidate or his party wins the election.  The donor then hopes to be able to obtain support for his personal, business or civic programs.

There is also wide public perception that some donors expect government favors in return, such as specific legislation being enacted or defeated, the awarding of significant government contracts or other benefits granted as a result of large campaign contributions; so some have come to equate campaign finance with political corruption and bribery.

Financial contributors

So then, does it really matter who finances political campaigns in The Bahamas?  The short answer is yes.  If political parties expect to be taken seriously, significant contributors must be closely scrutinized in order to determine whether the acceptance of their contributions will adversely affect the voters’ perceptions.  Let’s look at several examples.

Much has been made about lawyers who defend clients who are accused of criminal offenses.  The suggestion is that if a candidate is to be taken seriously by the voter, he should not represent persons so accused.  There is an even more pernicious suggestion that lawyers who do so are undesirable candidates for Parliament.  We totally disagree.

We are a country that is governed by the rule of law, whose primary precept is that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a candidate representing such persons, even in cases where the accused are awaiting an extradition hearing. Let us remember that there was no similar public outcry when Eugene Dupuch and Sir Orville Turnquest successfully represented Robert Vesco, the internationally renowned financial fugitive, when the United States sought his extradition.  In fact, Sir Orville subsequently enjoyed an illustrious and distinguished career as a Cabinet minister and deputy prime minister and then ultimately as governor general of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

Even more has been made of candidates accepting donations from such individuals.  Keeping in mind the innocent until proven guilty concept, we see nothing untoward about taking donations from such accused individuals, nor do we see anything inappropriate about accepting donations from individuals who have been acquitted of the charges against them.  They were presumed innocent and proven to be innocent, therefore donations from such persons are just like those from people who have never had a brush with the law.  Of course, if the contributor was actually convicted of an offense, then it would be imprudent for such contributions to be accepted.  Far too often in this society we do not appreciate the difference.

A second example involves a completely legitimate, clinically-clean contributor who makes a substantial contribution with the clear understanding that, if elected, the winner would ensure that certain actions are taken or favors granted for the contributor’s benefit.  Notwithstanding that contributor being above reproach, such an arrangement is equivalent to bribery and corruption.

Accordingly, the real test of the appropriateness of the contribution must be the legal standing as well as the intention of the contributor and an understanding of the motivation of such contributions.

Campaign finance laws

Most countries that rely on private donations to fund campaigns require extensive disclosure, including the name, employer and address of donors.  This is intended to police undue donor influence, while preserving most of the benefits of private financing, including the right to make donations and to spend money to enhance political free speech, saving government the expense of funding campaigns and keeping government from funding partisan free speech, which some citizens would find odious.

Supporters of private financing systems believe that private financing fosters civic involvement, ensures that a diversity of views are heard, and prevents government from tilting the scales to favor those in power or with political influence.  They also encourage enhanced transparency in the funding of candidates and the political parties.

There is no campaign finance legislation in The Bahamas and we submit that the time has come to consider changing this.  We believe that the correct balance of political finance impacts a country’s ability to effectively maintain free and fair elections, effective governance, democratic government and the regulation of corruption.

Conclusion

Political campaign finance can affect various societal institutions.  We fully recognize that money is necessary for democratic politics, and that candidates and political parties must have access to funds to play their part in the political process.  Money is never an unproblematic part of the political system, and, therefore, regulation of this process is highly desirable.

We also believe that our political culture must be taken into account when devising strategies for controlling money in politics in Bahamian elections.  Ultimately, the effective regulation and disclosure of political campaign finance can help to control the adverse effects of the role of money in politics, but only if well-conceived and implemented.  Without those proper regulations, our democratic process is in danger, and the pirates might just have to be expelled once more.

 

•Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Mar 05, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas Agriculture News: ...The number of Bahamian farmers decreased by 90 per cent over the last 40 years... ...While Bahamians seem to become more supportive of locally grown products

BAHAMAS SUFFERS 90% FARMER DROP OVER 40 YEARS


By NATARIO McKENZIE
Tribune Business Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net


THERE has been a 90 per cent decrease in Bahamian farmer numbers over the last 40 years, it was disclosed yesterday, with insurance said to be one of the "major concerns" for the industry locally.

Sekani Nash, production manager at Lucayan Tropical, in an interview with Tribune Business yesterday, said the Bahamas was often impacted by hurricanes and, while farmers spend a lot of money in the ground, there was not always a guaranteed return.

Mr Nash told Tribune Business: "Farmers spend a lot of money in the ground, and it's not always a guaranteed return on that. To have even minimal insurance, that would cover at least the cost of seeds if something goes wrong. Here, if you put something in the ground, you give a good prayer to God and hope for the best. It's definitely a major challenge.

"The industry is just not at the level where that is a necessity now, even though it should be. The industry itself is still too small for insurers to say they can see a profit in it for them; that is the unfortunate part. Only until we grow the industry will anything change. Right now we are just under 1,000 farms in the Bahamas compared to the 1960s, when there were about 10,000. Over the last 40 years there has been a 90 per cent decrease in the industry itself."

In a recent interview with Tribune Business, Minister of Agriculture and Marine Resources, Larry Cartwright, said the Government was still moving forward with plans for a contributory disaster relief insurance programme for farmers, with the assistance of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Mr Nash questioned whether the Government was truly committed to reducing agricultural imports. "The unfortunate reality is how far will the Government go to increase agricultural imports when they make money off the imports," he said.

"No matter how much lip service they spend, it's only lip service. It seems like they are only going to do enough to keep it where it is. Imports is where the Government makes its money, and registered farms get tax breaks on bringing in certain equipment."

Mr Nash said that as a young farmer, land availability was also a great concern. "As a young farmer, one of the greatest concerns is land availability," he added.

"The Government has made land available, but as a young farmer even if I was to get land from the Government, then I have to find money, someone who would believe in my idea for me to run a farm.

"There is no lease to own. Land is the one collateral that is like gold in any business. To have someone lease you land and you still don't have any collateral makes it difficult for you as a farmer starting out."

Mr Nash noted that distribution was a major challenge for farmers in the Family Islands, as products usually take days to get to stores and, ultimately, loose their freshness.

He said that over the last five years, Bahamians seem to become more supportive of locally grown products, but admitted that "it's still not where it should be".

March 02, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) seeks all Bahamian votes in the 2012 general election

by The Official Democratic National Alliance


Today’s headline by the Tribune, “Now DNA Seeks Haitian Votes” is very misleading to the Bahamian public, as it suggests an erroneous statement that the Party is underhandedly courting “the Haitian vote.” It would be wise to note that Haitians can only vote in Haiti. Bahamians vote in the Bahamas.

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA), with no other political party present, met with some Bahamian leaders of Haitian descent recently and we discussed the DNA’s policy on immigration, which was not altered from what was presented last year at a public DNA town meeting on immigration, on the Party’s website (www.mydnaparty.org) or as was presented recently at the DNA’s People’s Summit 2012.

It was a fruitful meeting and the DNA believes that it successfully explained to all in attendance that a DNA-government intends to adhere to the law, present a referendum to modernize the country’s regularization laws and remove political hindrances and corruption from the Department of Immigration. At no time did the meeting transform into a plea for votes. Our only focus was to reiterate to the group that the DNA would enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. In addition to:

· Use the most sophisticated technology to ensure that our borders are effectively patrolled.

· Bring the vexing illegal immigration problem in The Bahamas under control through intergovernmental cooperation and in accordance with international Human Rights Laws.

· Review the status of immigrants that have been in The Bahamas for long periods of time and are productive members of society with a view to regularization in accordance with current laws.

· Move with haste to consider the applications of persons entitled to apply for residency/citizenship.

· Move to regularize the status of children born abroad to Bahamian women by way for referendum.

We stand by our decision to denounce President Michel Martelly’s comments during his visit to the Bahamas as divisive and explosive, mainly because all voters are Bahamians and therefore their interests should reflect this country and not that of another. Further, the Free National Movement (FNM) should not have allowed President Martelly to make a state visit to the Bahamas during this charged political season. We feel that his visit was an election ploy engineered by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and the FNM, which backfired.

The DNA recognizes the vast contribution that Bahamians of Haitian origin continue to make to the Bahamian economy. We will work hand in hand with all Bahamians, no matter their origin, but we believe that a government has the unassailable responsibility to enforce the laws of the country.

February 29, 2012

mydnaparty.org

Caribbean Blog International

The most likely result of the 2012 general election, is that either the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) or the Free National Movement (FNM) will win and form the next government of The Bahamas... ...and the other major party will be the official opposition

The reaction of the election loser

thenassauguardian editorial

There are two ‘unconventional’ scenarios that could result in the next general election if the third party – the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) – wins a few seats.  There could be a minority government if no party wins a majority, but one is able to convince the governor general that it could govern.  The other option is a coalition government could result.  We say unconventional because those types of governments do not occur frequently in The Bahamas.

The most likely scenario, though, is that either the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) or the Free National Movement (FNM) will win and form the government, and the other major party will be the official opposition.

It will be interesting to witness the reaction of the leader of the losing major party.  Perry Christie appears determined to be prime minister again to prove he is good enough to serve multiple terms, just as Sir Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham have.

If the PLP loses the election, with the FNM winning 20 seats and it securing a close number like 18 seats, it is unclear if the 68-year-old Christie would go anywhere.  Such a majority is unstable.  As we have seen this parliamentary term with the resignation of Malcolm Adderley from the House of Assembly and Kenyatta Gibson crossing over from the PLP to the FNM, margins of one are unlikely to lead to longevity for a government.

Consequently, Christie is likely to fight on and attempt to negotiate his way to the fall of the Ingraham government, or to his own majority by luring away marginal FNMs.

If the PLP loses decisively and the FNM secures a strong majority, Christie would have been twice defeated and by an increased margin.  No PLP could force him to leave, but the party elite would pressure him to go.  Whether he would go or not is up to Christie.  He has appointed a ring of protectors (stalwarts) to ensure he cannot be beaten in a leadership race.

Ingraham is a more complicated character.  If he loses 20 seats to 18 seats, he too might make an attempt to lure several PLPs to secure a major.  If such an effort is unsuccessful, he would likely leave.  If the FNM is beaten soundly by the PLP, we think he would go graciously and quickly.

The difference in this regard is that Ingraham appears to be more content with his legacy.  He defeated Sir Lynden; he won back-to-back terms; he won reelection after his party lost an election.  Politically, there is not much else for him to do.

The reaction of the losing leader will be significant for the losing party.  If a party loses and is able to transition quickly to new energetic younger leadership, the eyes of the country would be on the new leader of the opposition.  He or she would have a fair chance at being the next prime minister if the time in opposition is used to demonstrate that the party has a new, bold vision for the country.

However, if the losing leader fights a divisive battle to stay after being rejected in his mid to late 60s, the party and leader might miss the message the electorate conveyed and suffer a worse fate the next time around.

We won’t have to speculate on the future for too much longer.  Voting time is near.

Feb 28, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

On February 27, 2002 — exactly 10 years ago today — Bahamians went to the polls in the country’s first referendum... ...A decade after that vote, The Bahamas is still behind many in the so-called civilized world in some respects... ...By voting "no" Bahamians ensured that the country remained in the archaic position of having discriminatory language in its Constitution

A cause for change

Bahamas should revisit issues in failed 2002 referendum

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

There’s an interesting saying in the tropical Southeastern Asian country of Burma: A woman can be equal to a man in all ways, but she must first die and come back as a man. In the 21st century, it would appear that this very saying could be applied right here in The Bahamas.

On February 27, 2002 — exactly 10 years ago today — Bahamians went to the polls in the country’s first referendum.

They were asked by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to vote to change the Constitution to eradicate language that made men superior to women.

But in results that Ingraham later admitted "shocked and shamed" him, an overwhelming majority of the voters — women included — voted against the historic change. It was an interesting outcome indeed for a people who have for a long time prided themselves on being among the most progressive in the Western Hemisphere, at least as far as civil liberties are concerned.

A decade after that vote, The Bahamas is still behind many in the so-called civilized world in some respects. By voting "no" Bahamians ensured that the country remained in the archaic position of having discriminatory language in its Constitution.

The results also appeared contradictory to the fact that The Bahamas’ record on the treatment of women and the role of women in society has been a commendable one.

The prime minister’s commitment to improving equality of the sexes was a plank in his campaign platform in 1997.

Ingraham noted in 2002 that for far too long, the Constitution has held double standards; a state of affairs that for too many years deprived the children of Bahamian women, married to foreign nationals, of citizenship; and denied the foreign-born spouses of Bahamian women the right to be registered as Bahamians, a right granted by the Constitution to the spouses of Bahamian men.

There is a classic example of a family negatively impacted by that constitutional provision. The late Dr. Mary Ritchie, a Bahamian woman, married a Trinidadian and they moved to The Bahamas before independence in 1973. The couple’s children who were born before independence automatically became Bahamians. But their children born after 1973 had to obtain work permits to be legally employed there.

Timothy Donaldson, a former Bahamian senator and the country’s former ambassador to the United States, said he has always been "incensed and ashamed" by the constitutional language in this regard. Donaldson was an advisor to the Pindling government during the constitutional negotiations in London.

"To me it’s just not right," Donaldson said. He explained that the thinking of then Prime Minister Pindling was that the provision would ensure that Haitians would not eventually take over The Bahamas which at the time had a population of only about 220,000 and today has a population of well over 300,000.

The country has long been burdened by an ongoing influx of Haitians who come to the country in rickety sea crafts, fleeing the unstable political regime in their poverty-stricken nation.

The Haitian presence in The Bahamas has continued to expand over the decades.

Between 1970 and 2010 births to Haitian mothers in The Bahamas nearly doubled, jumping from 7.2 percent to 13.7 percent, according to a new report released by The Department of Statistics.

"Pindling said ‘These Haitians produce like rats’," Donaldson said. "He said they’re going to produce all those children and at some point in time, the Haitians will outnumber Bahamians. But when you make a law geared at just one particular group of people, it’s certainly not a good policy."

The inequality clause is an entrenched provision of the Constitution. These provisions deal with the fundamental rights and freedoms of people as citizens, establishment and powers of Parliament, the cabinet and judiciary. Entrenched provisions can only be changed by 3/4 vote in Parliament, which happened in 2002, and a majority vote by the people in a referendum, which did not happen. To add provisions to the Bahamian Constitution also requires a referendum. The 2002 referendum sought to both change provisions and add clauses to the Constitution which was written in 1972.

Parliamentary exchange

The inequality issue, undoubtedly the most contentious, was not the only question posed to the Bahamian electorate in the referendum: Initially, the following questions were crafted by legislators.

1 - Do you approve of a Teaching Service Commission?

2 - Do you approve of an Independent Parliamentary Commissioner?

3 - Do you approve of the creation of an Independent Boundaries Commission?

4 - Do you approve amending the Constitution to increase the normal retirement age of judges from 67 to 72 for the Supreme Court, and up to 75 for the Court of Appeal justices? and,

5 - Do you approve amending The Constitution to permit the foreign spouse of a Bahamian citizen to reside and work in The Bahamas for the first five years of marriage, and thereafter entitled to citizenship?

6 - Do you agree that all forms of discrimination against women, their children and spouses should be removed from the Constitution and that no person should be discriminated against on the grounds of gender?

Ingraham made the announcement in the House of Assembly on December 6, 2001, informing members that it was the government’s intention to have the referendum on the same day as the next general election so that The Bahamas could "kill two birds with one stone".

"Election time is the time when you are likely to get the maximum number of persons to participate in the process," he said, "and so it is our intent to hold a referendum on the same day as the election."

On December 6, 2001, Ingraham drew attention to the discrimination question and gave it an early highlight as the key issue in the upcoming referendum.

"The one dealing with discrimination against women is fundamental and we propose to move that and as I understand it, there is consensus in the House in support of that particular amendment," Ingraham said. He told Parliament that he had in hand letters from the leader of the opposition, Perry Christie, and the only third party member in the House at the time, Dr. Bernard Nottage, that registered their support.

By the afternoon of December 20, 38 of the 40 members of the House voted on a sweeping amendment to the Constitution to abolish discrimination against women, their children and spouses.

"At last, 28 years following our independence, we are acting to remove from the supreme law of our land constitutionally-mandated discriminatory provisions against 50 percent of the population of The Bahamas," the prime minister said. "This is heavy stuff."

On January 16, members of the House of Assembly — with the exception of Dr. Nottage — approved the package of constitutional bills. Before his vote, Christie had this to say:

“We are headed for general elections. Those of us in the opposition have a view of what is fair.  If we regard the process [of the referendum] as unfair, then this is what will happen.  We will criticize and go to the country on the basis that this is an illegitimate course of action being advocated and you should not participate or you should vote no.”

A failed process

A month of public debates on the approaching referendum gave way to Referendum Day. What appeared to be a valiant and noble effort by the government to bring The Bahamas in compliance with international conventions that it endorsed, turned into a national debacle.

On all five questions, the majority of voters voted no

• Creation of an independent election boundaries commission.

Valid "Yes" 30,903

Valid "No" Votes: 57,291

• Creation of an Independent Parliamentary Commissioner.

Valid "Yes" 30,418

Valid "No" Votes: 57,815

• Gender discriminating language will be removed from the constitution and if children born to Bahamian mothers and foreign fathers will have Bahamian citizenship.

Valid "Yes" 29,906

Valid "No" Votes: 58,055

• The retirement age of judges will change from 60 to 65 years of age and 68 to 72 for appellate court judges.

Valid "Yes" 25,018

Valid "No" Votes: 60,838

• The creation of a commission to monitor the standards of teachers nationally.

Valid "Yes" 32,892

Valid "No" Votes: 55,627

For the opposition, the resounding no votes amounted to a great victory.  The Progressive Liberal Party celebrated the win as if it were celebrating election victory.

“The clear and unmistakable signal that the Bahamian people telegraphed yesterday is that they do not want any government messing with “their things” unless they, the people, are fully included in the process of constitutional reform from start to finish — and that the process of constitutional reform must never be rushed,” Christie said the morning after the vote.

The day after, Prime Minister Ingraham — who had called the referendum his last major agenda as leader of the country —  stunned many Bahamians when he said he was “ashamed” that Bahamians rejected his proposed amendments to the Constitution.  He also told reporters that he was “mistaken” when he declared that the party that won the referendum would win the general election.

“I have no regrets whatsoever,” he said.  “People are perfectly entitled to accept or reject any proposition put to them and they rejected this proposition.  I accept that this is their entitlement.  I move on.  I am ashamed, but I accept it.  That is the will of the people.”

When he returned as prime minister in 2007, I asked Ingraham at his first press conference after his re-election whether he was minded to re-visit the 2002 referendum questions.

Ingraham said there will be no more referenda under his watch.

But the prime minister has been known to change his mind.

In 2010, he advised that if re-elected his administration would hold a referendum so Bahamians could decide whether they want gambling legalized.

Whatever government is elected this year ought to take another look at the discriminatory questions in our Constitution.

Perhaps in a less politically charged atmosphere, we could finally succeed in making the necessary changes.

Feb 27, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International