Overcoming The Party Allegiance
.
TALKING SENSE
By KHALILA NICOLLS
khalilanicolls@gmail.com
tribune242
I STARTED this campaign cycle annoyed by the fact that Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham's faces were plastered all over my constituency, considering I live far from North Abaco and far from Centreville, where these men, both leaders of their respective political parties, are offering themselves as candidates in the May 7 general election.
I was fighting hard to hold on to the principled view that party credentials should not take precedence over candidate credentials, because in our democratic system of representational politics, my vote is supposed to represent the individual vying in my constituency whom I deem best to represent my voice. That principled view calls me to consider each representative without reference to political party propaganda.
I have resigned myself from that utopian view, once and for all, for the following reasons: members of parliament do not represent the voices of the people, they represent the voices of their party; and members of parliament have no power to affect change, unless they are in the inner circles of influence in their political parties.
Further, we exist in a democracy where choice is a contest between "worse and worser", where most candidates, across party lines, are ideologically identical.
And last, but not least, I have the unfortunate misfortune of finding among all of the candidates, few who identify with critical visions that I have of myself as a Bahamian. I plan to tackle my first two concerns in the first of this two-part series.
In our two-party political system (no offence to the DNA and the rest of them), constituency representatives no more represent my voice than they do the voice of their rivals. How could they, when they barely represent their own voices?
How many times have you seen a member of parliament stand up for a personal belief that conflicted with a party's position? Even where they do so in private circles, rarely do they step into the public spotlight, exposing their party to such scrutiny.
In our political system, power is confined to a small inner circle of people with influence. Anyone with status, outside the circle, is a mere puppet, and all others are mere pawns. It seems like a cynical view of our democracy, but experience proves it every time.
Is this healthy for our democracy? No. Is this our reality? Yes. Members of parliament pledge an unspoken allegiance to their political parties, and they take that vow more seriously than any responsibility to be a true representative of the people who put them in office.
Very few MPs, if any at all, organise meaningful community engagements on issues of national importance before they stand up in the House of Assembly to spout off impassioned party positions. How exactly do they represent the voices of the community, if they have no relationship with their communities?
Members of Parliament are infamously absent from constituency offices. In fact, outside of the election cycle, constituency offices are inactive black holes.
It is not that members of parliament serve no purpose; they simply serve a purpose other than that which we wish they would or should.
As private citizens, at some point we need start questioning this notion of representational politics, so we can collectively figure out a better way to extract value, not ham and turkey, from the political leaders who form our government and claim to represent our voices. Because, quite frankly, I am tired of smoking the dreams they are selling.
Members of Parliament, and not just those in opposition, constantly cry about their inability to access the resources of the government to affect change at the constituency level. It is not entirely their fault: our MPs have been trained to be professional beggars of government hand-outs in a system that was not designed to support that sort of representation.
On the other hand, our MPs make themselves impotent, because they have no other concept of their own capacity to represent.
Our political system only supports our development at the constituency level when our community interests are already aligned with the political plans of those with power and influence. If a constituency priority is on the government's agenda, all is well, and you can be sure that initiative is advancing the agenda of a political party, in some form or fashion. If not, then 'dog nyam ya supper'.
V Alfred Gray, MP for MICAL, is a case in point. He routinely comes to the House of Assembly with impassioned whining, and he calls that representation. Most times, his cries fall on deaf ears. And even when the government acts in the interest of Mr Gray's constituents, more than likely, it has nothing to do with Mr Gray, and everything to do with the government's own agenda. The recently passed the Mayaguana Development Bill is a prime example.
For our democracy to grow and to work for its people, we need to develop a new concept of representational politics: one that does not involve delusional ideas that our members of parliament actually represent our voices, or have any real power.
Members of Parliament are instruments of political parties, seeking to acquire and maintain power to satisfy their own interests. We get lucky when those interests align with our own, and when they serve the greater good.
For the sake of imagining, I propose a more practical and useful concept of representational politics that envisions members of parliament more as community organisers and accountable community leaders, which would require no hand-outs from the government, or huge capital investments. It would require vision, leadership, commitment, concern, community engagement and the capacity to mobilise resources in the interest of communities.
I envision a system where our idea of democracy is bigger than our concept of a vote every five years in a general election; where our political representatives are accountable to their communities and not their political parties.
In our current system, where party politics takes precedence over true representational politics, where there are few benchmarks to truly differentiate candidates or parties, we are confronted with several negative side effects: namely, the emergence of a politics of personality, instead of a politics of ideas and action, or personal accountability.
Candidates hide behind parties and parties hide behind their leaders, which leaves party leaders to engage in childhood play to prove who the best is. Our candidates and the parties have an important characteristic in common: they both have an impoverished vision of democracy and national development; and sadly, their equality shields them from scrutiny.
The country believes it is gearing up for a general election, but what is really taking shape is a personality contest, a battle of two politically savvy wits.
More next time, as I continue my examination of voting for the party or the person with the case of Nassau Village.
Talkin Sense explores issues of race, culture, politricks and identity. Pan-African writer and cultural scholar Noelle Khalila Nicolls is a practising journalist in the Bahamas.
April 12, 2012
tribune242
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.
Showing posts with label Bahamas political system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bahamas political system. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
In our current political system, where party politics takes precedence over true representational politics ...where there are few benchmarks to truly differentiate candidates or parties ...we are confronted with several negative side effects: namely, the emergence of a politics of personality ...instead of a politics of ideas and action ...or personal accountability
Monday, February 7, 2011
Branville McCartney support in the Free National Movement (FNM) has collapsed
What was Branville McCartney thinking?
thenassauguardian national review
The headline for this piece is the question that just about everyone has been asking since McCartney made the now famous statement — that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has no compassion.
McCartney, a sitting FNM MP who has made no secret of his leadership aspirations, made the startling statement last week Tuesday during an appearance on Star 106.5 FM’s talk show, “Jeffrey”, hosted by Jeff Lloyd.
This is exactly what McCartney told Lloyd: “At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges. We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people.
“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”
When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.
“The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
For anyone who doubted the statement or its context reported exclusively by The Nassau Guardian on Wednesday, McCartney repeated his feelings about the Prime Minister and the state of the Free National Movement during an interview with NB12 TV news later that night.
The statement drew a strong response from the public, much like his decision to resign from Ingraham’s Cabinet after serving just under two years as a junior minister in the ministries of tourism and immigration. McCartney thought he was being “underutilized”.
Now a new round of questions surrounding McCartney’s political strategy and his political future hang heavily over the relative newcomer to politics.
Is this the final chapter in McCartney’s political career? Maybe not, but the young politician does not appear to be making any friends in the FNM.
“His (McCartney’s) support in the party has collapsed,” said a well-placed source within the FNM who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the party. “Any residual support he had has collapsed.
“You can’t keep going around lacerating the Prime Minister and the FNM for all the wrong things they are doing, but then say, ‘I support the party’. “It doesn’t make sense.”
PARTY VS. PUBLIC SUPPORT
Those outside the FNM seem similarly confused.
“If Branville is listening to people out there who may be clamoring for him to be the leader of the FNM, the question is are they people who can vote for him at convention. If not, he ought to recognize that it’s not meaningful support,” said Raynard Rigby, a former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.
“If he has support within the FNM he ought to figure out and think through how his open criticism of the leader will factor into the minds of his supporters. You can be popular in the eyes of the public, but party support is what matters if you are interested in a leadership position, and you saw that in the deputy leadership race in the PLP. Obie Wilchcombe was seen as more popular but Brave (Davis) beat him convincingly because he had the support of the party.”
George Smith, a veteran politician who served in the Sir Lynden Pindling administration, suggests that McCartney has failed to do just that — think things through, at least when it came to last week’s statement.
“The statement probably reflects what he is thinking, but he obviously did not weigh it carefully. In politics when you say something that makes you appear bold and courageous you may have to pay a price,” said Smith.
Only time will tell what that price will be, but there are already the obvious suggestions that McCartney may not receive the FNM nomination to run in Bamboo Town as a result of the “no compassion” remark.
“Make no mistake, FNMs have their own problems with Hubert Ingraham, but the party does not like these attacks which are seen as extremely disloyal to the party,” said the FNM source. “He is providing attack lines to the opposition. That’s a serious thing.”
McCartney has said that if he does not get the nomination he would run as an independent or “otherwise”. That “otherwise” is unlikely to be the PLP, given the boost an independent McCartney in Bamboo Town would give to the chances of the opposition winning that seat.
POLITICAL EXPERIENCE
Independents, generally, fare very poorly in general elections in The Bahamas, unless they receive the support of a political party that may decide not to run anyone in that seat.
While there have been success stories, such as Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham (Tennyson Wells and Pierre Dupuch to a lesser extent), those men had years and years of experience in office and serving in Cabinet before turning independent, and had been battle-tested.
McCartney has neither the wealth of experience nor the political battle wounds to carry him through the trials of the “political wilderness”, and cast him as a maverick independent.
But what McCartney does appear to have is a certain appeal to a segment of the public that is hungry for a new face to lead the country. “Sick of Ingraham and Scared of Christie” is becoming a mantra among many young professional Bahamians who are openly declaring their intentions of sitting out the next general election.
McCartney is a successful lawyer and a seemingly dedicated and conscientious MP. He has a certain talent for public relations and is good at using technology and social media to connect with young voters. And whatever his critics may say, he is not afraid to publically criticize the government or his party, which in some quarters has been interpreted as ambitious and courageous.
McCartney has also taken a tough stance on two hot button issues in the country — illegal immigration and crime — and while everyone has not always agreed with his approach, his decision to publically state his positions has been generally well-received by the public.
Whether McCartney decides to bide his time in the FNM — although that seems unlikely in light of his recent statements — or become an independent, the road ahead will not be easy.
“When you are in Cabinet you have a level of public persona associated with the position. In the back bench you have to continually redefine who you are politically to maintain a public presence,” said Rigby.
This is a point obviously not lost on McCartney, who since resigning from Cabinet has made a number of headlines, more recently for showing up at a BTC unions anti-privatization rally, and telling reporters that he was undecided on an issue that his party obviously supports.
But if McCartney is to succeed in one of the mainstream political parties, he will have to work on how his actions and statements are being interpreted by those who make the decisions in those parties — the more experienced politicians who in this political climate call the shots.
AMBITION OR ARROGANCE
What some have interpreted as ambition and courage, others have interpreted as arrogance and inexperience.
“If he had said what he said in a way that people could better interpret he would have shown good political acumen, but by being so (publicly) honest he clearly has positioned himself in a way that the party has to deal with him,” said Smith, who emphasized that personally he is very fond of McCartney.
“Longevity is not on his side. He has not been around long enough. He’s a newcomer.
“He must have tremendous talent and personality which permits him to be effective, courteous, respectful and show that he has learned the game well enough and get people to say of him the many things he says of himself.”
A former politician who spent decades in frontline politics said of McCartney:
“He was in Cabinet for less than two years and then said he wanted to be leader or a substantive minister. It’s admirable to have ambition to go to the top but there’s a road, a protocol. Dion (Foulkes) and Tommy (Turnquest) came up through the party.
“I thought he was trying to do a good job in immigration, he made some errors but at least he was doing something. If he is able to control this particular situation he may survive but he has to get a handle on his public posturing.”
Among his colleagues, McCartney reportedly has little support.
“None of his Cabinet colleagues take him seriously. I don’t think he is seen as a contender. By resigning from Cabinet he removed himself as a contender for leadership,” said the FNM source.
McCartney was appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office, took many by surprise when he decided to resign last year February.
According to his resignation letter: “The factors that motivated this run the full gamut of issues and emotions, some more compelling than others. In the forefront are my feelings of stagnation and the inability to fully utilize my political potential at this time.”
He went on to say: “It is also my belief that our current political system is headed in the wrong direction…I have already proven myself on many levels and have much to be proud of, but it would be wrong of me to assume that I have proven myself to you without demonstrating the strength and diversity of knowledge you deserve.”
An interview following that resignation only added to the confusion.
McCartney said that as a member of the Cabinet he was required to tow the party line, and thought he could do more outside of the Ingraham Cabinet, “speak out on what is right and not based on party lines”.
He said at the time: “There is no doubt that the prime minister, Hubert Alexander Ingraham, is the best man for the job at this time. He is no doubt the best leader that we have had in our party and he remains that way today… I respect him, I support him. He has my full, full support.”
McCartney said at the time that he had no intention of challenging Ingraham for the leadership of the party. But that line changed later that year when McCartney made it known that if the FNM held its convention that year he would offer himself for leader. The FNM decided not to hold the convention, citing financial and other reasons.
WASTED OPPORTUNITY
Some thought that the opportunity to serve in the Cabinet was a great training ground for anyone with leadership aspirations, even if you disliked the style or some of the decisions of the prime minister.
“He had a chance to make his mark but he left. It takes years to make change but he didn’t give himself a chance,” said the FNM source, who pointed out that Ingraham obviously saw potential in McCartney or else he would not have been appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office.
Another criticism that has been leveled against McCartney is that he is not a team player, and had to be reminded that “Branville does not have a policy, the government has a policy”.
Some of his actions as junior minister in immigration were controversial and interpreted as grandstanding. Not only did it raise eyebrows in the country but warranted review by the prime minister.
“If he had remained in the cabinet, continued to perform and perform well, show that he was more politically savvy he would have had a good shot in serving in the leadership of the FNM,” said Rigby.
“His future may look dim today but that could change down the road. He must demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, at times it may be necessary to publicly criticize the party and leader but you have to be prepared to be an agent of change.”
2/7/2011
thenassauguardian national review
thenassauguardian national review
The headline for this piece is the question that just about everyone has been asking since McCartney made the now famous statement — that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has no compassion.
McCartney, a sitting FNM MP who has made no secret of his leadership aspirations, made the startling statement last week Tuesday during an appearance on Star 106.5 FM’s talk show, “Jeffrey”, hosted by Jeff Lloyd.
This is exactly what McCartney told Lloyd: “At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges. We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people.
“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”
When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.
“The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
For anyone who doubted the statement or its context reported exclusively by The Nassau Guardian on Wednesday, McCartney repeated his feelings about the Prime Minister and the state of the Free National Movement during an interview with NB12 TV news later that night.
The statement drew a strong response from the public, much like his decision to resign from Ingraham’s Cabinet after serving just under two years as a junior minister in the ministries of tourism and immigration. McCartney thought he was being “underutilized”.
Now a new round of questions surrounding McCartney’s political strategy and his political future hang heavily over the relative newcomer to politics.
Is this the final chapter in McCartney’s political career? Maybe not, but the young politician does not appear to be making any friends in the FNM.
“His (McCartney’s) support in the party has collapsed,” said a well-placed source within the FNM who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the party. “Any residual support he had has collapsed.
“You can’t keep going around lacerating the Prime Minister and the FNM for all the wrong things they are doing, but then say, ‘I support the party’. “It doesn’t make sense.”
PARTY VS. PUBLIC SUPPORT
Those outside the FNM seem similarly confused.
“If Branville is listening to people out there who may be clamoring for him to be the leader of the FNM, the question is are they people who can vote for him at convention. If not, he ought to recognize that it’s not meaningful support,” said Raynard Rigby, a former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.
“If he has support within the FNM he ought to figure out and think through how his open criticism of the leader will factor into the minds of his supporters. You can be popular in the eyes of the public, but party support is what matters if you are interested in a leadership position, and you saw that in the deputy leadership race in the PLP. Obie Wilchcombe was seen as more popular but Brave (Davis) beat him convincingly because he had the support of the party.”
George Smith, a veteran politician who served in the Sir Lynden Pindling administration, suggests that McCartney has failed to do just that — think things through, at least when it came to last week’s statement.
“The statement probably reflects what he is thinking, but he obviously did not weigh it carefully. In politics when you say something that makes you appear bold and courageous you may have to pay a price,” said Smith.
Only time will tell what that price will be, but there are already the obvious suggestions that McCartney may not receive the FNM nomination to run in Bamboo Town as a result of the “no compassion” remark.
“Make no mistake, FNMs have their own problems with Hubert Ingraham, but the party does not like these attacks which are seen as extremely disloyal to the party,” said the FNM source. “He is providing attack lines to the opposition. That’s a serious thing.”
McCartney has said that if he does not get the nomination he would run as an independent or “otherwise”. That “otherwise” is unlikely to be the PLP, given the boost an independent McCartney in Bamboo Town would give to the chances of the opposition winning that seat.
POLITICAL EXPERIENCE
Independents, generally, fare very poorly in general elections in The Bahamas, unless they receive the support of a political party that may decide not to run anyone in that seat.
While there have been success stories, such as Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham (Tennyson Wells and Pierre Dupuch to a lesser extent), those men had years and years of experience in office and serving in Cabinet before turning independent, and had been battle-tested.
McCartney has neither the wealth of experience nor the political battle wounds to carry him through the trials of the “political wilderness”, and cast him as a maverick independent.
But what McCartney does appear to have is a certain appeal to a segment of the public that is hungry for a new face to lead the country. “Sick of Ingraham and Scared of Christie” is becoming a mantra among many young professional Bahamians who are openly declaring their intentions of sitting out the next general election.
McCartney is a successful lawyer and a seemingly dedicated and conscientious MP. He has a certain talent for public relations and is good at using technology and social media to connect with young voters. And whatever his critics may say, he is not afraid to publically criticize the government or his party, which in some quarters has been interpreted as ambitious and courageous.
McCartney has also taken a tough stance on two hot button issues in the country — illegal immigration and crime — and while everyone has not always agreed with his approach, his decision to publically state his positions has been generally well-received by the public.
Whether McCartney decides to bide his time in the FNM — although that seems unlikely in light of his recent statements — or become an independent, the road ahead will not be easy.
“When you are in Cabinet you have a level of public persona associated with the position. In the back bench you have to continually redefine who you are politically to maintain a public presence,” said Rigby.
This is a point obviously not lost on McCartney, who since resigning from Cabinet has made a number of headlines, more recently for showing up at a BTC unions anti-privatization rally, and telling reporters that he was undecided on an issue that his party obviously supports.
But if McCartney is to succeed in one of the mainstream political parties, he will have to work on how his actions and statements are being interpreted by those who make the decisions in those parties — the more experienced politicians who in this political climate call the shots.
AMBITION OR ARROGANCE
What some have interpreted as ambition and courage, others have interpreted as arrogance and inexperience.
“If he had said what he said in a way that people could better interpret he would have shown good political acumen, but by being so (publicly) honest he clearly has positioned himself in a way that the party has to deal with him,” said Smith, who emphasized that personally he is very fond of McCartney.
“Longevity is not on his side. He has not been around long enough. He’s a newcomer.
“He must have tremendous talent and personality which permits him to be effective, courteous, respectful and show that he has learned the game well enough and get people to say of him the many things he says of himself.”
A former politician who spent decades in frontline politics said of McCartney:
“He was in Cabinet for less than two years and then said he wanted to be leader or a substantive minister. It’s admirable to have ambition to go to the top but there’s a road, a protocol. Dion (Foulkes) and Tommy (Turnquest) came up through the party.
“I thought he was trying to do a good job in immigration, he made some errors but at least he was doing something. If he is able to control this particular situation he may survive but he has to get a handle on his public posturing.”
Among his colleagues, McCartney reportedly has little support.
“None of his Cabinet colleagues take him seriously. I don’t think he is seen as a contender. By resigning from Cabinet he removed himself as a contender for leadership,” said the FNM source.
McCartney was appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office, took many by surprise when he decided to resign last year February.
According to his resignation letter: “The factors that motivated this run the full gamut of issues and emotions, some more compelling than others. In the forefront are my feelings of stagnation and the inability to fully utilize my political potential at this time.”
He went on to say: “It is also my belief that our current political system is headed in the wrong direction…I have already proven myself on many levels and have much to be proud of, but it would be wrong of me to assume that I have proven myself to you without demonstrating the strength and diversity of knowledge you deserve.”
An interview following that resignation only added to the confusion.
McCartney said that as a member of the Cabinet he was required to tow the party line, and thought he could do more outside of the Ingraham Cabinet, “speak out on what is right and not based on party lines”.
He said at the time: “There is no doubt that the prime minister, Hubert Alexander Ingraham, is the best man for the job at this time. He is no doubt the best leader that we have had in our party and he remains that way today… I respect him, I support him. He has my full, full support.”
McCartney said at the time that he had no intention of challenging Ingraham for the leadership of the party. But that line changed later that year when McCartney made it known that if the FNM held its convention that year he would offer himself for leader. The FNM decided not to hold the convention, citing financial and other reasons.
WASTED OPPORTUNITY
Some thought that the opportunity to serve in the Cabinet was a great training ground for anyone with leadership aspirations, even if you disliked the style or some of the decisions of the prime minister.
“He had a chance to make his mark but he left. It takes years to make change but he didn’t give himself a chance,” said the FNM source, who pointed out that Ingraham obviously saw potential in McCartney or else he would not have been appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office.
Another criticism that has been leveled against McCartney is that he is not a team player, and had to be reminded that “Branville does not have a policy, the government has a policy”.
Some of his actions as junior minister in immigration were controversial and interpreted as grandstanding. Not only did it raise eyebrows in the country but warranted review by the prime minister.
“If he had remained in the cabinet, continued to perform and perform well, show that he was more politically savvy he would have had a good shot in serving in the leadership of the FNM,” said Rigby.
“His future may look dim today but that could change down the road. He must demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, at times it may be necessary to publicly criticize the party and leader but you have to be prepared to be an agent of change.”
2/7/2011
thenassauguardian national review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)