'Time To Decide On Death Penalty'
By SANCHESKA BROWN
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Double talk
An up close look at duplicity and hypocrisy in nat’l politics
BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
The political landscape is forever changing and with it comes shifting political positions.
For some politicians, their views on issues of national import evolve due to certain developments that cast new light on these matters. In some circumstances, this is quite understandable.
But for others, their positions shift based on political expediency and opportunity.
These are the flip-floppers, the hypocrites, the duplicitous bunch who may be stunned perhaps if confronted with past statements lined up against current views.
Very rarely do their words come back to haunt them; not because the evidence of their duplicity is not there, but because it often remains buried on the dusty pages of newspapers that are clipped and stored away.
These politicians depend on the short memories of the electorate, perhaps, or the failure of media to do a better job at making them accountable for their utterances and actions.
The examples of double talk stretch back years, and really take little digging to be exposed, especially in the technological age.
In opposition, some politicians latch on to pet issues — crime, the environment, education and others. But in government, they sometimes lose whatever ‘passion’ they might have had for these issues.
To be clear, the flip-floppers are not unique to any one party or philosophical grouping. They are on every side. They use words to score points, assuage fears and grab headlines.
Often, they change positions based on what side of the political aisle they may be on at the time. In opposition, a politician’s view on a subject may differ entirely from the view he or she might express in government.
The archives of The Nassau Guardian reveal more than enough flip-flopping, duplicity and hypocrisy to write many weeks of articles.
Consider these few examples:
Dr. Bernard Nottage on the Coroner’s Court
In opposition, Dr. Nottage was a passionate advocate for crime victims and strong in his concerns about alleged police abuse.
He seemed to have little trust in the Corner’s Court or in the police to investigate themselves.
But as national security minister, his tone is different.
After two men died in police custody just over a week ago, Dr. Nottage cautioned the public against making assumptions until all the facts are known.
“I can’t rush to judgment,” he told reporters. “I hold the commissioner of police directly responsible for the conduct of his officers. He knows that, he reports to me regularly and my experience thus far has been where justifiable complaints have been made against police officers, the commissioner has been resolute in pursuing the matter to its lawful conviction.”
Further expressing confidence in the police and the coroner to do their job, Dr. Nottage said, “It is my view that even without the coroner’s involvement if the matter could be investigated by police that a thorough job would be done.
“But I don’t think that would satisfy the public and so that is why the coroner, who is an independent institution, is very important in this matter.”
In September 2012, after The Nassau Guardian reported on several fatal police shootings, Nottage said criminals cannot expect to brandish weapons at police without facing consequences.
In December 2010, he was not a minister. Back then he expressed little faith in the police and in the Coroner’s Court.
On December 1, 2010, he called for an independent public inquiry into the death of Shamarco Newbold, a 19-year-old who was killed by police.
“It is not good enough to refer it to the Coroner’s Court, Mr. Speaker,” Nottage said in the House of Assembly.
“Neither is it good enough for there to be an internal inquiry on the part of the police.”
These days, it is good enough as far as Nottage is concerned.
As an aside, Nottage has yet to use his position of power to push for ‘Marco’s Law’ or the establishment of a sex offenders’ register, things he called for while in opposition, after the murder of 11-year-old Marco Archer in September 2011.
“I believe that out of this sad event will come new policies and perhaps even new legislation... possibly a Marco's Law. I shall push for that," he vowed back then.
The legislation would seek to strengthen the penalties associated with child molestation, he said.
Perhaps Dr. Nottage will use his weight before the end of this term to push for the things he called for in opposition.
Darron Cash and BTC
Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Darron Cash has more than one example of being a flip-flopper, but for the purpose of this piece, I will focus on just one.
After Prime Minister Perry Christie told reporters last week that the government is considering appointing a select committee to examine the controversial 2011 sale of 51 percent of the shares of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), Cash lashed out in a statement.
He said, “The suggestion that [Christie] wants a probe of the BTC sale to Cable and Wireless first evokes disbelief, then laughter and pity”.
Cash then urged the government to “bring it on”.
He said probing BTC would be a “meaningless journey” that would waste taxpayer dollars.
Cash also accused Christie of trying to deflect attention away from his “nine months of colossal failure and ineptitude”.
And he said the prime minister was attempting to tarnish the legacy of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.
Stunning words from a man who was so critical of the BTC deal back in 2011 that he wrote a lengthy article on why the deal was a bad one.
In fact, Cash himself urged then Prime Minister Ingraham to “take the Cable and Wireless/LIME deal back to the drawing board and design a better deal”.
Cash wrote, “I disagree with the government’s proposed action. I believe it is wrong for the country, this decision to sell the country short.
“It is a betrayal of future generations, and like a bad stock on BISX — in which you have little confidence — the government is selling the next generation (my generation) short.”
In that piece, Cash seemed to have suggested that the deal would have reflected poorly on Ingraham’s legacy. His tone has changed.
How could Darron Cash expect anyone to take him seriously?
If it is the FNM’s position that Christie’s contemplation of a probe is laughable or evokes pity, Cash should have been the last person to say so.
His position on the BTC deal was clear at the time he stated it.
Defending himself yesterday, Cash said, “As to my personal position regarding the sale of BTC, let me make one thing abundantly clear to the chairman of the PLP; my position on the sale of BTC has absolutely nothing to do with whether the present government should waste public money on a meaningless inquiry into that sale.”
The mid-year budget statement
This week, the Christie administration will present its mid-year budget statement, revealing adjustments in spending and providing a progress report on the state of public finances and the economy.
The practice of presenting the statement was instituted by the Ingraham administration, and every year during the debate that followed, the PLP’s position was that it was a waste of time.
In a statement on February 23, 2011, the PLP said the mid-year budget was “a waste of time, a public relations sham like so much of what this government does by sleight of hand”.
It was the message of the PLP during each debate of the mid-year budget under Ingraham.
For example, during debate in the Senate on March 16, 2009, then Senator Allyson Maynard-Gibson repeated what her colleagues had to say in the House.
“The mid-year budget review is a waste of time, staff resources and money,” she opined. “The information in this mid-year budget could have been given in a one man press conference.”
A few days earlier, then Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney defended the Ingraham administration for bringing the mid-year budget.
“Our country should be forever grateful to our visionary prime minister, the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham, for having the fore thought to introduce this concept of a mid-year budget report to Parliament,” McCartney said.
“…This exercise is critical towards our government’s effort to encourage and promote accountability, transparency, best financial practices and proper budget planning”.
This year, the mid-year budget statement will apparently not be a waste of time because the PLP is bringing it.
Such is politics I suppose.
Unemployment numbers
The Department of Statistics recently released new unemployment numbers that show the unemployment rate in The Bahamas decreased slightly from 14.7 percent to 14 percent.
The latest survey was conducted from October 29 to November 4, 2012. It showed that 165,255 were listed as employed and 26,950 were listed as unemployed.
The governing party welcomed the news, saying it is evidence that Christie and his team are moving the economy in the right direction.
While it was only a slight decrease, Minister of State for Finance Michael Halkitis said it was good news nonetheless.
But unlike August 2011, the PLP had no concerns that the Department of Statistics did not count discouraged workers — that group of people who are willing to work but who have become so discouraged they have given up looking for work.
Back then when the department released numbers showing that the rate had dropped from 14.2 percent to 13.7 percent, the PLP criticized statisticians who had conducted the survey.
In fact, the party staged a demonstration. That’s right, a demonstration, placards and all.
During that protest, Elizabeth MP Ryan Pinder said unless discouraged workers are added to the unemployment figure, the overall statistics are “misleading”.
At the same protest, Halkitis said the Ingraham administration was excluding those numbers in an effort to show that the economy is turning around.
Why is no one in the PLP demanding that discouraged workers be included in the latest calculation of the unemployment rate? Could it be because they are now in power?
At the time of that 2011 protest, Director of the Department of Statistics Kelsie Dorsett fired back, saying both the PLP and the FNM too often use the statistics to gain political points.
“Both the Free National Movement and the Progressive Liberal Party have short-term memories when it comes to how the process works,” Dorsett told The Guardian.
With politicians flip-flopping on so many issues like unemployment numbers, it is likely that the electorate will become even more suspicious, jaded, skeptical and untrusting of politicians.
After all, nobody loves a hypocrite.
February 18, 2013
| Authored by: | Gena Gibbs |
| Source: | Bahamas Information Services |
| Date: | February 13, 2013 |
| Rt. Hon. Perry G. Christie | |
| Source: | Ministry of Finance |
| Date: | February 14, 2013 |
Changing political fates
A restless Bahamian electorate is becoming harder to read
BY BRENT DEAN
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com
After the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) victory in May 2002, Bahamians were in love with their new leader.
Perry Christie could do no wrong.
When he mounted rally podia to the sound of R. Kelly’s “The Storm is Over Now” in that campaign, he was like a loved prophet coming to bring new times to a tired but hopeful people. He won that general election by a landslide margin.
Five years later Christie and his PLP were defeated.
The man who defeated him was his friend and the prime minister from 1992 to 2002. Hubert Ingraham came back as the anti-Christie.
While Christie, he argued, was lazy and inadequate, another Ingraham-led government would restore order to The Bahamas. Ingraham won the 2007 general election.
Five years later, the man who was not good enough to lead was good enough again. Christie was reinstated as prime minister.
The mood of the electorate in the modern Bahamas is very different than in the Pindling years. Then, one well-loved leader was able to govern for 25 consecutive years. Now we have had two consecutive one-term governments, and this latest crew of leaders has run into headwind.
The referendum loss for the PLP, despite the party officially saying it was not on a side, came after it won the 2010 Elizabeth by-election, the 2012 general election and the 2012 North Abaco by-election. A declaration of upset came so soon after many expressions of support.
Politics and electorate of today
With an electorate now willing to change its mind so quickly, politicians should not take anything for granted. They should also not misread their mandates.
The 2007 Free National Movement (FNM) government and the current PLP government each won just under 50 percent of the vote in the respective elections that brought them to office. Both had comfortable margins, but not the overwhelming support that is needed to move controversial policies or legislation alone.
This may have been the fundamental problem with the gambling referendum. A party with less than 50 percent of the support of the people moved forward with a vote on a divisive issue to a volatile electorate against established stakeholders such as the church. Considering the modern Bahamian electorate as the same as the Pindling voters would cause miscalculation.
Fewer and fewer Bahamians love the PLP or the FNM. Fewer and fewer Bahamians believe that our political class has the best interest of the people at heart. There is suspicion and anger. There is a belief that many simply want to lead in order to dispense the assets of the state to friends, lovers and associates.
The people are not innocent victims in this, however. Assuming politicians to be modern pirates seeking loot, many Bahamians align themselves with whomever just for the time in order to get their contacts or their jobs. Cynicism has set in.
When enough people feel they have not gotten theirs from the crew they voted for, they send for the others only to facilitate self-interest.
Navigating treacherous waters
The current mood of voters presents an interesting set of problems for the people who run the ‘Gold Rush’ administration.
For Christie, if he intends to retire before the end of this term it is easy and simple. Wait for his full pension and then ride off into the sunset an even richer man – one who will always be taken care of by the state. Politically speaking, he needs to do nothing but sit and wait.
But for the group including Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis and Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe, men who want to be prime minister, it is crucial that the method is found to satisfy enough members of a cynical electorate to ensure the PLP wins again.
If Christie does go before the end of this term – and I don’t just assume he will – he may find the wannabe prime ministers in his Cabinet increasingly at odds with him. A departing Machiavellian leader has no real interest in the future of the crew he leaves behind when all of his interests are already taken care of. He can do as he pleases in his final days, making moves that are not necessarily in the best interest of them.
The would-be heirs will increasingly want to have a more direct hand in policymaking and governance if Christie is leaving because they want to ensure the party can win again, extending their time on the throne.
As the months go by, these men will want to know if the chief is going or staying. They know that it cannot be assumed that the PLP will just win again, even though the FNM is without money and elements of the Ingraham fan club are tearing down the current party leader, Dr. Hubert Minnis.
To the potential PLP PMs the governing party needs successes. The governing party does not need debacles such as the failed referendum.
Ingraham’s end may scare the future leaders of the PLP. He publicly confirmed late in his term that he would run again and seek to be prime minister a fourth time. Misreading his mandate from 2007 and full of belief that he was loved, Ingraham ran again in tough times and was rejected. That rejection also swept out many senior FNMs. Carl Bethel, Tommy Turnquest, Dion Foulkes, Desmond Bannister, just to name a few, may too have been retired for good with Ingraham.
When the boss just does what he wants, he can destroy you too.
Time
It feels like the general election was just a few weeks ago. It actually is nearing a year since that clash.
These years of the PLP mandate will pass quickly. And with each passing month, for those who seek to lead the PLP and The Bahamas, it will become increasingly urgent for them to know what Christie intends to do and when he intends to do it.
Our prime ministers are politically all-powerful in their parties. They can’t be voted out internally.
I wonder what goes on in the mind of the prime minister. I wonder whether he is tired and wants no more, or if he likes it so much that he just can’t give it up. I wonder if he supports Brave Davis, his law and business partner, or if he seeks to hand the throne to another. I even wonder if he has come to conclusions on these matters yet. Only Christie can answer.
Christie is a wise politician who has seen it all. He has witnessed up close how in recent years the fates of politicians have changed so dramatically so soon.
He, like Ingraham, has the chance to write his last chapter. Time will pass quickly and Christie will soon have to make his choices known.
February 11, 2013