It is likely that Mr. Branville McCartney’s electoral prospects will be doused at the polls... and, following the 2012 general election, he would be relegated to the political dustbin... having been set on the treadmill to political oblivion

The Enigma of Branville McCartney

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

 OVER time, my outlook on Branville McCartney has evolved from being particularly enthusiastic about his youthful vigour and gravitas to a diverse perspective where one appreciates his outspokenness and ability to organize, to an opinion that his apparent arrogance, messianic deportment and smug giddiness has created a seemingly enigmatic figure.

 A one-time blue-eyed boy of the local media, Bran McCartney is today a hyperactive populist who leads a fledgling third political party—the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).  Undoubtedly, Mr McCartney ignited the political flames leading up to this election year, flicking lit firecrackers into the core of the political establishment. Bran McCartney—regardless of his razor thin political résumé now the centrepiece of the DNA, whilst the other DNA candidates appear to be mere space-filling, political accessories. Having heard Mr. McCartney’s hot political rhetoric of late, one can conclude that he has seemingly become a mealy-mouthed, one man news cycle. Even more, recently there seems to have been more political departures and drama within the DNA than is on an episode of the Oxygen Network’s TV show “Girls Behaving Badly.” Certainly, it makes for great theatre.

 Politically standing between PLP leader Perry Christie and Prime Minister/FNM leader Hubert Ingraham, Bran McCartney has now forayed into the land of giants where he hopes to out-manoeuvre PM Ingraham and outfox Mr. Christie at the polls.

 That said, the DNA leader has shown himself to be a flip-flopper over the years. Whilst his opinion about PM Ingraham may now differ due to politically expedient motives, in a story published in The Tribune on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 he said:

 “The Prime Minister is also a person who I have learnt a lot from as well. I think he has the best interest of the country at heart. He makes decisions and he is very direct.”

 In another Tribune story, published on the aforementioned date and entitled “I want to run for FNM in Bamboo Town at next election”, Mr. McCartney asserted that he was hopeful that the Prime Minister (PM) would not seek to “punish” him, noting that he hadn’t decided if he would again contest the Bamboo Town seat.

However, he went on to say:

 “I had five years to serve. Right now I have two more years. If I don’t get a nomination from the party I doubt I will run as an Independent—or anything else for that matter. I would have done my time and I would have done my time well. I guarantee you that. I would have done my time well and I will move on.”

 What?! In the wake of this statement, Mr McCartney waffled and not only decided to run—he even formed an entire political party in the process.

 In the earlier report, Mr McCartney maintained that he came into Bamboo Town as an FNM and would leave Bamboo Town as an FNM. Of course, the evidence clearly contradicts that statement.

 In a Tribune article published on Monday, October 4, 2010 and entitled “McCartney predicts tough 2012 general election fight for FNM,” Mr. McCartney declared that the FNM was still the best choice for the country although the party would have to go in overdrive to win over disgruntled voters.

According to the Bamboo Town MP:

 “And I think the FNM, it’s a party of doing things but we’ve not promoted what we’ve done, public relations is not good with the FNM. There have been things done and statements made that perhaps turned off a lot of people, I think showing a lack of compassion. The party will also have to win over young ‘swing’ voters who were not old enough to cast a vote in 2007.”

 Mr McCartney added:

 “It places us to a certain extent at a disadvantage but I have no doubt in my mind that the FNM is the best party (to lead the country).” He then referred to the FNM as an “awesome political machinery.”

 Wow! I wonder if Mr. McCartney still feels that the FNM—and not the DNA—is the best party to lead the country. Such a statement makes one wonder about the real reason behind the formation of the DNA and why Mr McCartney had a sudden change of heart just seven months later (the DNA was launched in May 2011). Could it be that Mr McCartney was upset that the FNM did not hold a convention, one where it was speculated that he had plans to challenge Mr Ingraham for party’s leadership? Was he angry that the PM had not yielded the reigns of the FNM/government when he (McCartney) stated that the time had come for Mr Ingraham to “pass the baton” of party leadership to the next generation?

 When Mr. McCartney resigned from the Cabinet in 2010, he commended Prime Minister Ingraham in his resignation statement and showered praise upon the FNM.

 At that time, Mr. McCartney said:

 “Subsequently, I have been the benefactor of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s political precision and decisiveness. One need to look no further than his decision to introduce me to citizens of the constituency of Bamboo Town as evidence of his unique ability to think, reflect, consider and make the right decision.”

 “We are facing tough times, but I confidently believe that the nation has been mobilized by Mr Ingraham and the FNM and rallied for a great national effort. I have learned why this Prime Minister and leader of the FNM is the most successful leader of our party. And it is because of this that I say, I have no sympathy with and will give no credence or comfort to those who would want to use this resignation to undermine his leadership of the FNM and/or the Commonwealth of the Bahamas,” he then said.

 Say what?! I’m thunderstruck. Is the current incarnation of Bran McCartney the same person who said the abovementioned? What changed Mr. McCartney, what changed?

 In his 2010 resignation statement, Mr. McCartney also said:

 “That the Free National Movement has achieved since its election to a third non-consecutive term as the Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas gives me hope for what we can and must achieve in the future and I am humbled to have participated so instrumentally to this end. I am indeed proud to be FNM.”

 Wow. I’m speechless. So, why is this proud FNM now running away from the FNM’s record, one that he admitted that he was an instrumental participant in?

 In the concluding paragraph of his statement relinquishing his seat around the Cabinet table, Branville McCartney stated:

 “Bamboo Town will be ready and the FNM party will continue to lead this great national effort to a fourth election victory with my full, unwavering and steadfast loyalty and support.”

Well blow me down! A fourth election victory and with his “full, unwavering and steadfast loyalty and support!”

 Was the formation of the DNA an example of Mr McCartney’s steadfast loyalty and support? Was it an indication of his lust for power? Mr. McCartney, in the face of your own words, why should Bahamians trust you?

 In February/March 2010, Mr. McCartney pledged his “full, unwavering and steadfast loyalty and support” for the FNM and by mid-March, 2011, Bran McCartney had flip-flopped, broke ranks with the FNM and was on a platform telling people about his dreams and encouraging them to imagine this and that.

 In the announcement of his divorce from the FNM, Mr. McCartney said:

 “It has been difficult, to say the least, facing challenges, which contradicted my philosophy, convictions and values. I have prayed constantly for an answer to solve this dilemma and my prayers have been answered. I have made a conscience decision to severe my relationship with the Free National Movement.”

 As my grandparents on Long Island say, “these are the last days” and, unquestionably, hypocrisy reigns supreme!

 Now leader of the DNA, Bran McCartney is not Barack Obama (circa 2008)—regardless of the fanatical support of a few obsessive supporters who see him as the second coming of Obama.

 Indeed, the race in Bamboo Town will be the hottest electoral contest in 2012. There will be political bloodletting in Bamboo Town, with Cassius Stuart (FNM), Renward Wells (PLP) and Craig Butler (Independent) all running and plotting to ambush McCartney at the polls. The contest for the Bamboo Town seat is a highly contentious matter, leaving McCartney to combat the massive electoral machinery of both major parties. Indeed, it appears that the DNA leader will suffer a political death, even though he has demonstrated an ideal work ethic within his constituency and is heralded as a hard worker, as a young man who understands the true purpose of parliamentary representation of his constituents.

 Perhaps, Mr. McCartney should’ve switched to the South Beach seat or, even more, postponed his plans for the DNA’s launch to focus on winning his own seat as an Independent.

 It is likely that Mr. McCartney’s electoral prospects will be doused at the polls and, following the elections, he would be relegated to the political dustbin— having been set on the treadmill to political oblivion.  

                                 

Caribbean Blog International

We evaluate a few areas of the Free National Movement's (FNM's) Manifesto 2007

FNM Manifesto 2007: Delivered or not?

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

Rather than take political parties’ slogans at face value, it would be prudent for voters to revisit the contents of these parties’ manifestos and thoroughly scrutinize them to ascertain whether they have made good on their promises.  After all it is often said that past behavior is a good indicator and predictor of future performance.  It is therefore necessary for the electorate to be aware that they are the true lie detectors within Bahamian democracy.

In this piece we evaluate a few areas (which by no means is exhaustive) of the 2007 manifesto of the governing Free National Movement (FNM) with a view to determining whether it has in fact delivered on promises for national development and prosperity as its slogan “We Deliver” suggests.

In its manifesto, the FNM committed, among other things, to budget deficit reduction.  While it is accepted that the current economic climate would have impacted the achievement of this promise on a significant scale, the government appeared to have made no significant efforts to reduce the deficit.

The government being strapped for cash simultaneously increased taxes and engaged in enormous borrowing.  The FNM government failed to carry out moderate austerity measures such as restructuring of the civil service or revising its pension scheme.  This is bearing in mind that civil servants’ wages account for a significant portion of the governments budget expenditure.

Fiscally, the government committed itself to maintain a “no income tax fiscal regime” during this term of office.  It can be argued that the current government is opposed to any real commitment to tax reform by failing to consider a progressive tax structure, which is desperately needed.  A genuine and constructive discussion on tax reform should not expressly exclude any form of taxation.  Rather, all options and possibilities should be explored in the national interest.  The FNM’s view as stated in its manifesto, could translate into the poor and working classes continuing to carry the burden of government expenses in this country.

Investment projects and the economy

According to its manifesto, the FNM had hoped to foster strong economic growth through domestic and foreign direct investment.  Unfortunately, little or no new major investments were secured during this term and we continue to witness an increase in the unemployment rate while the government struggled to create real job opportunities during its term in office.  The establishment of a Small and Medium Size Enterprises Facilitation Center as promised in its manifesto could have arguably improved the economic environment in The Bahamas and mitigate the negative impact of the recession.  The passage of legislation to address this sector could have fostered job creation and potentially an increase in government revenue from license fees, customs duties and property tax.

While the initiative on the part of the government to implement unemployment benefits to assist individuals up to a maximum of 13 weeks is noteworthy, it seems fair to state that such a program is reflective of the government’s inability to stimulate economic growth and create an environment for job creation.

Monetarily, the FNM had promised to eliminate exchange control during this term in office.  It is obvious that this promise was not delivered.  The justification for the maintenance of the exchange control regime by proponents of the same and the government in recent times has been its role in shielding Bahamians and Bahamian entities from the full impact of the global recession.  The position and actions of successive governments toward this topic suggests that they are of the view that Bahamians and Bahamian entities are unable to conduct their own affairs financially.

The crime issue

The issue of crime is one of the main topics going into the next general election.  It is no news that crime levels in The Bahamas have escalated during this term of the FNM government.  Arguably, the inability of the government to create sufficient jobs to reduce the unemployment rate has contributed to a surge in all levels of crime.  Despite mixed reviews emanating from the recent engagement of an international consultant by the government, the fundamental issue of crime and the fear of crime can not be overemphasized and should not be politicized.  The reality is that any advice given by local or foreign consultants or law enforcers are only as good as the government’s own will to enforce the laws it enacts and put in place measures to reduce illegality at all levels.  An attitude of no tolerance should be enforced toward minor crimes such as traffic infractions to issues of illegal immigration, illegal gambling and murder at the greater end of the spectrum.  Successive governments have continued to make crime a political issue as opposed to a national issue.  Crime was used as a major political issue in the 2002 general election by the FNM and not surprisingly it is back at the forefront in the 2012 election season.

Other promises

The 2007 manifesto of the FNM government also promised the implementation of a Consumer Protection Agency.  It is imperative to state that the legislative framework had already been put in place by the previous Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration.  The FNM also promised to push for mortgagors to transfer their mortgages between lenders at no cost.  The manifesto under review also vowed to enact private pension legislation to ensure workers save toward their retirement, continue public service reform and revise the General Orders for public servants.  With the exception of transfer mortgage cost elimination, it seems apparent that these promises were not delivered.

The question is not whether the FNM-led government delivered on promises it did not make as it can be argued that the FNM vicariously delivered on some PLP projects set in motion before the PLP left office.  Such projects include the Lynden Pindling International Airport, the straw market, national stadium, Baha Mar, the I-Group project in Mayaguana and others.  In the final analysis, we must ask the question: Did the FNM deliver on promises that it made in 2007?

All political parties and aspiring leaders ought to do right by the Bahamian people and deliver in large part on the promises set forth in their manifestos.  When it is all said and done, people often forget what was said at the last rally or what was printed in the editorials. However, a manifesto must be referred to not only during the election season, but during the successful party’s term in office.  It is also incumbent upon political parties to distribute their manifestos well in advance of Election Day to facilitate public debates on the issues and solutions put forward.  We must cross-reference today’s promises with those made five years ago to ascertain whether the promises are the same and whether the promisor, based upon its actions and/or performance, will truly deliver on its promises if it is successful at the general election.  The persistent distribution of manifestos just weeks before Election Day is an insult to the Bahamian people, perpetuates a society of ignorance and prevents the electorate from making an informed decision on their party of choice.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

Mar 29, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Edmund Moxey's tortured heart and soul over the New Jumbey Village planned for Fort Charlotte

How PLP colleagues stole Ed Moxey's ideas

tribune242 editorial


IN LEAFING through the Ed Moxey files in The Tribune's archives last night, we were not surprised to find that the Coconut Grove MP's own colleagues were trying to take credit for his cultural concept - Jumbey Village. In other words, they were trying to steal Mr Moxey's own brainchild from him.

We say not surprised because the PLP came to power with a strange personality quirk -- call it what you will, some at the time referred to it as a mammoth inferiority complex. However, they seemed to want to wipe the slate clean.

To hear them talk, Bahamian history started on January 10, 1967 when the Progressive Liberal Party defeated the United Bahamian Party and for the first time in the history of these islands ushered in majority rule.  For this we give them full credit. Although for generations there were many Bahamians, and even English civil servants, whose courageous decisions helped change a people's thinking to prepare the way for the historic transfer of power, as far as the PLP were concerned the past - and the men and women who were a part of it - did not exist.

And so it was not surprising that they felt that Ed Moxey was getting too big for his boots and had to be chopped down, and his creation snatched from him.

But on that day in 1967, it was Lynden Oscar Pindling who was the chosen leader for the historic change. And, although, as many -- Mr Moxey included - maintained he soon lost his way, no one can take from him that single achievement.

However, the prevailing attitude among the PLP of that day was that nothing that happened before 1967 was of importance, and anything created afterwards naturally had to have been created by them.

And so, Mr Moxey should have seen the handwriting on the wall when he formed a cultural committee, invited community leaders, including Prime Minister Pindling, and outlined his ideas for a community created "of the people, by the people, for the people."  The enthusiasm to get started was so overwhelming that a few weeks later Mr Pindling (as he then was) called on Mr Moxey to "make him part of the machinery". In good faith, an enthusiastic Ed Moxey offered the prime minister the position of Parliamentary Secretary Community Development. Mr Pindling's acceptance would be the eventual kiss of death for the project.

By 1974- with the building of Jumbey Village well on the way -- ominous storm clouds started to form. That year Jumbey Village was excluded from the Budget. The Coconut Grove MP said that government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village was the result of petty jealousy by individuals who felt that only they should be involved in certain national activities.

The fight was on with Tourism Minister Clement Maynard, whose Ministry was busy planning a festival site at Fort Charlotte on the same lines as Jumbey Village.  This would have been the death knell for the Village and the last hope of attracting tourists with their dollars over the hill to patronise the struggling businessmen there. Mr Moxey was outraged. He said he knew nothing about the Fort Charlotte plans until he learned about the Goombay Festival -- also his idea that he envisioned for his people over the hill.

"The amazing thing," said Mr Moxey, "was that I was parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister at the time and he was honorary chairman of the Festival, but I knew nothing about it.  My name was never mentioned and when I raised hell they tried to shut me up."

Mr Moxey challenged Mr Maynard's statement that Goombay was the corporate idea of a number of people. "This is a lie," he thundered. "It was entirely my idea.

"In a letter to Prime Minister Pindling on May 15, 1974, drawing his attention to a newspaper headline that read: "New Jumbey village planned for Fr Charlotte site," Mr Moxey wrote in part:

"This is a very serious matter which may have very serious repercussions.  As you may recall, sir, the Minister and Ministry of Tourism stole the Goombay programme from me and my people and sold it to foreigners who are now doing a good job in keeping it to themselves, while the people for whom it was designed are going out of business and are on the verge of starvation. Now he seems hell bent in an attempt to take the Village concept to Bay Street.

"My heart and soul are tortured," the letter continued, "my people now suffer great pain because it would appear that you and your Minister have struck a death blow to their dreams and aspirations.

"Let me remind you, sir, that we have made tremendous sacrifices to bring you and your Government to power and God's eyes are on the sparrow.

"I do humbly pray," the letter concluded, "that you use your good office and influence to restore sanity to this nation 'Now', for which you are ultimately responsible."

The Fort Charlotte plans never succeeded and Jumbey Village crumbled back into the dust from which it came.

"The Price of Being a Man, the story of Ed Moxey and the undoing of Jumbey Village and the Quiet Revolution," written and narrated by Anthony Newbold, will be shown at 8pm Sunday on Cable Bahamas -- channel 12. It commemorates the 25th anniversary of destruction of Jumbey Village.

March 27, 2012

<<< Mr. Edmund Moxey says that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village resulted from petty jealousies of individuals ...who believed that only they should be involved in certain activities of national importance>>>

<<< The birth and death of Jumbey Village: ...the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment... the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution>>>

<<< In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations... It preceded both by many years... In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries>>>

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

This 2012 general election, you should vote... so that whatever historic result is announced that night (or in the days after), you can say, “I helped do that”

Let's just vote

It’s time for Bahamians to make their decision on the next government of The Bahamas

By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com

When I left St. Anne’s School in 2007 after voting in the St. Anne’s constituency election, I knew how I would vote at the next general election, whenever it would be called, if a certain scenario persisted.  The scenario I thought might continue has, and I will do in a few weeks what I thought I would do five years ago when I walked out of the voting booth.

For some voters the main issue or main issues are clearly defined. The rhetoric of campaigns cannot sway these voters away from fundamental ideals or an overwhelming concern.  So for some of us, the pre-election jockeying has not been as interesting as it has been to others.  We simply want to vote and see what the final result will be.

This is a landmark election for Bahamians.  We could make a man prime minster for 20 years; restore another man who is nearly 70 to office; or vote for a third party and make it a “permanent” part of our political process.  Of course, there is also the option that because there are three parties running in each constituency there might be no majority winner.

Though some play coy and suggest deciding on who to vote for is a complicated exercise, the choices are quite defined.  And barring a miraculous, new grandiose promise we all would have to think over, little else is likely to emerge that will move a large bloc of voters.  So rather than watching another constituency office opening, or seeing another TV ad or hearing one more wild accusation of corruption or malfeasance, it would be great if we could just hurry up and vote.

Those clear choices

This will be the largest voters’ register in Bahamian history.  There are already about 170,000 registered voters.  If it takes the full two months for an election to be called, who knows, there may be 180,000 people eligible to vote on Election Day.

Our choices are the Free National Movement (FNM) led by Hubert Ingraham; the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) led by Perry Christie; and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) led by Branville McCartney.

For those who want to vote for a leader, you have seen Ingraham govern for 15 years and Christie for five years.  There is enough of a body of work there on each side for you to know what these men would do if given another chance to lead.  Few leaders change in the twilight of their careers.  Don’t vote for a leader assuming that he will be different than he was over the many years you observed him in public office.

If you think the country has done well under Ingraham’s rule and you like his policies and style, he’s your man.  If you think Christie was a much better executive during his five years in office than Ingraham ever was when he was PM, then go gold.

Evaluating McCartney, however, takes a little more effort.  He has not been a member of Parliament for five years.  He has not been a party leader for one year.  For those who choose him over the others I suspect the feeling exists that 20 years of Ingraham-Christie rule has been inadequate.  A vote for McCartney, therefore, is hopeful, rebellious and exploratory.

While a vote for Bran may be all those things, a wasted vote it is not.  There are no wasted votes in elections.  Each voter has a right to cast a ballot for the best option available to that voter, and in doing so the people collectively choose who leads, who follows and who will have to try again.  The objective of elections should not be just to be on the side of a winner, but rather for each of us to contribute our best opinions to selecting the best people to represent us as a governing side and as an opposition.

Now while some vote for leaders, others vote for candidates.  Here it is necessary to determine the person best able to advance the interests of the community at the national and local levels.  While there are only three people “seeking” the post of prime minister (I discount the marginal parties and their leaders from this calculation), in each constituency there will be three or more candidates.  The numerous independents and marginal parties offering at the election create a host of options for voters.

The unregistered and the non-voter

With all these options out there to vote for, there are still some people who are unregistered.  There are also some people who are registered who do not intend to vote.  Now, there are some people who do not vote for religious reasons.  Let’s exclude them from our discussion.

Of the others who are not casting ballots, there are individuals out there who are intellectually lazy.  Rather than spending the time considering the issues, or the records of the candidates or parties, or examining the policy positions of the various factions, this group just complains.

They say this leader is not good enough; that party is not good enough; nothing will change if I vote.  There are people in countries such as Cuba, China, North Korea and Zimbabwe who only dream of free, fair and consistent elections.  Lazy voters, those who won’t take time to make a decision as to who to vote for, do not realize the significance of the opportunity they have.

A little effort, a little maturity, taking a little time to get off the social network gossiping, could easily lead to a voting conclusion.  You don’t have to love the option to participate.  It is fine to pick the best of the bunch, as a person or group on the ballot will lead your country and make decisions to impact your life and those of the people you love.

Election night

When it is all said and done history will be made at our next poll.  One of our senior statesmen may be retired, or a young man and his new party may become historic figures.  For now, Christie, Ingraham and McCartney are moving around with the swagger of stud lions.  On election night, there is almost no scenario that would make all three of them happy.  One or two will likely be devastated.  One or two may not come out in public for some time.

This is a good thing.  Democracy works when the powerful need and fear regular people.  You will decide their fates.  They are almost finished promising and pleading.  What is to come is up to you.

With all power comes responsibility.  This election, you should vote so that whatever historic result is announced that night (or in the days after), you can say, “I helped do that”.

We have a beautiful country that has some problems at this time in its history.  That beautiful country needs you to help set it on a new course.

Mar 26, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Mr. Edmund Moxey says that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village resulted from petty jealousies of individuals ...who believed that only they should be involved in certain activities of national importance

The destruction of Jumbey village

tribune242 editorial


"NO, I can't believe it - that can't be true!" This was Coconut Grove MP's Ed Moxey's shocked reply in May 1974 when a news reporter called to ask what he thought of a report that government had planned to build a replica of his Jumbey Village at Fort Charlotte. If true, this meant that the tourist dollar would remain on Bay Street and not flow to little businessmen Over the Hill where it was sorely needed. Mr Moxey knew that any development of Fort Charlotte would be in direct competition with Jumbey Village.

The whole idea of Jumbey Village -- built in 1971 on the reclaimed City Dump -- was to create a community centre with arts, crafts, music, a school, library, clinic, and social centre. It was to be an area, created by an indigenous people who hoped through their cultural programmes and craft work to attract tourists with their dollars to the village. When Mr Moxey was elected to the House in 1967, his belief was that the PLP was dedicated to providing a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

In January 1975, Cat Island MP Oscar Johnson was to pour scorn on his government's "rich members who had forsaken over-the-hill" to dine on Cable Beach at the PLP's eighth anniversary celebrations. He reminded his party that over the hill was "the source of the PLP's strength." He warned that it could also be its eventual undoing.

In 1974, Mr Johnson told the PLP that 90 per cent of "black staff" working in the hotels lived over the hill, and from experience it was known that a "man with a toothache cannot smile." These were the areas, he said, that needed social change -- a change envisioned in the community concept of Jumbey Village.

That year, Mr Moxey and several (PLP) government members criticised their government in the House of Assembly because funds for the completion of Jumbey Village and the planned community youth programmes had not been included in the 1974 Budget. Nor was Jumbey Village included in the Ministry of Tourism's Goombay Summer programme -- a programme the Coconut Grove MP had suggested in 1972 should be held in Jumbey Village. His protest resulted in him receiving a personal letter from Prime Minister Pindling firing him as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Culture with responsibility for community development.

Mr Moxey said that government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village resulted from petty jealousies of individuals who believed that only they should be involved in certain activities of national importance.

In 1973, Mr Moxey had written a letter to then Deputy Prime Minister AD Hanna demanding a retraction and apology for statements Mr Hanna had made about him using slot machines for fund raising. Mr Moxey found his statements "maliciously designed to discredit me in the eyes of the public." Mr Moxey got no apology. Nor was his letter acknowledged.

And then a rumour was started.

"For months now," said Mr Moxey, "political elements have gone around in my constituency whispering about misconduct on my part when I was handling the birth of Jumbey Village. They talk about money. Well, the Ministry of Education and Culture investigated the matter and have found every single cent accounted for. The report was sent to Minister Livingston Coakley. For four months I have been asking him to release the report in order to clear up the matter. He has refused to do so."

Mr Moxey, like Carlton Francis after him, was a marked man. He had become too popular and, therefore, had to be consigned to the political graveyard. Jumbey Village eventually followed.

When government funds earmarked for the Village, but not fully used, were frozen, parents, teachers, and schoolchildren raised $90,000 to complete the museum.

"It would be a gross insult to them," Mr Moxey said, "to now duplicate a museum at Fort Charlotte."

Not to be left out, the late Wenfred "Sife" Heastie added his two cents to the debate. Mr Heastie was not only a staunch supporter and major financial contributor to the PLP, but he was also deputy prime minister A D Hanna's uncle.

"Ed," he said, "is the only man who did something personally in his district. He built a community centre and a day-care centre in his district and he built Jumbey Village out of the dump. They are jealous because the rest of them don't have a damn thing to show, except the new houses they moved into in the east and in the west."

He said the PLP government cut Jumbey Village from the development budget because "to get Ed Moxey out of the picture they have to let Jumbey Village die a natural death. If they cut off everything this will die and Ed will die. And to speed up matters, they're going to Fort Charlotte to build their own version of Jumbey Village."

In July, 1987 Jumbey Village cultural centre was torn down to make way for the proposed National Insurance Building.

Mr Moxey tells his story on a DVD -- soon to be released-- entitled "The Price of Being a Man -- the Quiet Revolution and the undoing of Jumbey Village".

<<< Edmund Moxey's tortured heart and soul over the New Jumbey Village planned for Fort Charlotte>>>

<<< The birth and death of Jumbey Village: ...the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment... the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution>>>

<<< In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations... It preceded both by many years... In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries>>>

March 26, 2012

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

A reflection on the political retirees' class of 2012... following the 2012 general election

A reflection on political retirement

thenassauguardian editorial

The early months of 2012 have been dominated by the general election.  It will be the eighth general election in an independent Bahamas.  Of the seven we have had, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) won four and the Free National Movement (FNM) won three.

But before a single vote is cast this time around, we will say goodbye to some long-serving politicians.  After the votes are counted we will say goodbye to even more of them.

For those who lose the nomination fights to come, and to those who lose the various constituency elections, a graceful exit would be a better conclusion to a long career than whining, complaining and hostility.

No one should assume that there is a career in politics.  What should happen is men and women with talents and successes should offer themselves for public service for a period.  The people then select the best of the best and those individuals should do their best to improve the community they serve.

No elected official should want to serve a lifetime in politics.  In fact, for talented and successful people there should be an urge to go back to the private sector or to private life.  So when that time comes, through the loss of an election or nomination fight, exhaustion or whatever other reason, saying goodbye should not be hard.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham seems to agree with this perspective.  He summed it up well in the last sitting of the House of Assembly for 2011 on December 13.

“My hope is that those who seek public office will consider it a duty and responsibility to serve and not to gain a personal advantage,” said Ingraham.

“Conversely, individuals should come to accept that not being elected to Parliament will not be a disadvantage.

“They can expect to be treated fairly whether in or out of office.  It is very important for a democracy to have as its underpinning that if you get elected and you are unelected that you can live in a society as any ordinary person.

“You can live [by] rules that are clearly established, that you can be employed, that your children can have access to whatever availabilities to society, and that no one will be out to get you because you have served in politics.

“And it is my hope that we will move along those lines in a more evident way.

“If we don’t evolve to that level, we will continue to produce governments with members who will fight tooth and nail to be in government because they fear being out of government.

“And you should never fear being out or in.  You ought to do the best you can while you are in and when you are out, you ought to feel like you can live a normal life and be bound by the same rules you put in place while you are in.”

Being able to depart graciously also sets a good example for future generations.  It demonstrates that power is something to be shared.  Countries that are at war or in a constant state of upheaval are in such states because powerful factions cannot share power.

The political system is also renewed when new minds enter.  Those who were born during the World War II years, and who were raised during the Cold War years, should now be seeking to leave politics, handing power over to those who came of age during the Internet years.

So for those who will be sent home from the political scene in 2012, be not afraid or saddened.  You were never supposed to be there forever.

Mar 24, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The birth and death of Jumbey Village: ...the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment... the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution

Backbenchers disillusioned by govt - Moxey

tribune242 editorial

THERE are those today who are convinced that if Ed Moxey's dream of a cultural community centre in the heartland of the Grove had been allowed to grow, the shipwrecked state over which we mourn today would not have had a chance to develop.

Jumbey Village was conceived by Mr Moxey as a cultural centre to unite a people as they struggled to improve their lot -- socially, culturally and economically. It was envisioned as a centre to be built by the people for themselves. They would have their school, library, social centre, clinics, sports, music, and arts and crafts from which they could sell their own creations. And, of course, they would be surrounded by music -- their own music. Mr Moxey, himself a musician, the son of the well known pianist, the late George "God Bless" Moxey, and his group would be one of the many participants. It was through the Jumbey Village movement that Timothy Gibson, the author of the Bahamas' national anthem, came into his own.

On Sunday, March 11, the showing of a documentary on Ed Moxey and the birth and death of Jumbey Village was premiered at the Performing Arts Theatre at the College of the Bahamas. It was the 26th anniversary of the destruction of Jumbey Village.

"The Price of being a man" is the story of Ed Moxey, Jumbey Village and the "quiet revolution."

"This then," said the commentator, "is the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment, the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution. It is told as seen through his eyes, those who reported on it and in some instances, those who were involved in facilitating its creation and ultimately watching its destruction."

According to Mr Moxey "shortly after the 1967 election, many of the PLP, especially the backbenchers already had concerns about the direction in which the new government was heading." He said their first Speech from the Throne in the House of Assembly appeared to be a "continuation of the same old policies of the United Bahamian Party (UBP)." Of course, there was the exception of Sir Stafford's commission of a development plan for New Providence that "would have transformed over the hill, in particular the Grants Town community."

That plan, designed by Columbia University's School of Architecture, was completed and delivered shortly after the UBP was replaced by the PLP as the government of the Bahamas. Each member of the House at that time was given a copy. It is questionable whether any member ever looked at it. It was a golden opportunity lost for community development in New Providence.

Very shortly after the election, said Mr Moxey, he "became concerned about whether or not the Bahamian people would see the social, cultural and economic liberation promised by the PLP's 1967 victory at the polls."

Mr Moxey was so concerned that they would not that in June 1967 he called a meeting at his home for the PLP backbenchers. He did so, he said, because nothing had been said by their leaders about "educating the masses about how government worked and protecting their well being" or "cultivating and nurturing our cultural heritage and only some vague representation of social programmes."

According to Mr Moxey "the backbenchers to a man, all expressed disgruntlement with what they considered a deviation from the original goal of social, cultural and economic upliftment of the people, with ministers building little kingdoms unto themselves."

It was then that Mr Moxey predicted that the "country would end up on the rocks, or with very serious challenges."

Said the commentator: "There is no smoking gun, just a paper trail 21 miles long and 7 miles wide, stretching all the way back to 1969. A trail that exposes betrayals, pettiness, internecine warfare and what has been called deception of the highest order. It shows a government backtracking or just plain ignoring its own stated policy that 'community development must play a vital role in the development of this nation, specifically mentioned in the White Paper for Independence that 'community development centres will be progressively and systematically established in densely populated areas to cater for pre-natal and post-natal needs, Child Day-Care needs and the recreational needs of the people."

* Next we shall tell the brief, but tragic story of the birth and death of Jumbey Village.

March 23, 2012

A people betrayed, says Ed Moxey, of the Pindling years 

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International