The one thing that is clear to me ...is that a government has five years to govern ...if the prime minister does not call early elections

The government must govern

Having watched the budget debate over the past few weeks, I was encouraged by the fact that there was some discussion which created dialogue not only amongst the parliamentarians, but also the citizenry. It was interesting to see issues such as the proposed web shop gaming regulation, value-added tax, concerns about transparency in the budget presentation, freedom of information, crime, etc., thoroughly ventilated by government and opposition parliamentarians.

Contrary to what some may think, it is healthy for parliamentarians to constructively comment on matters that may appear contentious even if the view put forward is divergent from the political party they support. What were even more interesting were the political innuendos that were generated from the rousing discourse.

I am extremely pleased as a Bahamian to see that our democracy is alive and well. We are evolving as a young, independent country to a point where the next generation is being vocal in all aspects of society. For the generations born post-independence, it should be recognized that protesting, arguments and divergent views did not just come into existence in the past few years. It was because of a generation of young people in the 1950s that was the catalyst for independence in 1973. The key issue here is that when we understand our history, the adage, “the more things change, the more they remain the same”, is so true in our little Bahamas.

Like any other developing country, The Bahamas has its fair share of challenges. It also has an electorate that expects instant solutions to all the problems. Quite frankly that forms the basis of a potentially disappointed electorate that wants things to happen, and to happen right now. Surely, that is a recipe for disaster as there has to be a methodical and deliberate approach to governance that affects solutions that will be meaningful and truly beneficial.

This is not just a theoretical view, but one grounded in reality. Regardless of what each of us thinks should be done with respect to every government decision that is made, it is our collective efforts that elected the government to do the job that they are doing and it is our responsibility to make our views known to them in a respectable and articulate manner.

We cannot justly criticize the government for decisions that are being made which will ultimately result in a better way forward for us, simply because we lack the intellectual capacity to suggest alternatives that are better than the decisions they are making.

The level of ignorance that some have with regard to good governance and informed decision making reaches a point that is higher than the all the dung the wild donkeys of Inagua can produce. The electorate has an obligation to make rational and reasonable recommendations to its members of Parliament.

It cannot be right that we elect our members of Parliament to make decisions on our behalf, criticize them, yet offer no logical set of solutions for consideration that is equal to or better than the positions they are taking.

Shared responsibility is what can occur when the citizens and the elected officials work to address the challenges and problems of a society.

While we may argue about the manner and form in which policies are implemented, the substance of the matter is equally important. Isn’t it ironic that the electorate, which enjoys the nice roads of New Providence today, is the same electorate that criticized the former administration and resoundingly voted them out of office in the 2012 elections?

Likewise the same electorate voted overwhelmingly in support of the current administration, yet many are quick to condemn the government for decisions it has made.

The one thing that is clear to me is that a government has five years to govern if the prime minister does not call early elections. If it is the case that the government has five years to govern, the electorate in all fairness must give the government a chance to govern so as to lawfully fulfill the promises as set out in their commitment on election day.

To take a critical approach before the government is able to achieve its objectives is not only illogical, but suggests that the electorate does not expect the government to fulfill its promises or it believes the government is disingenuous. Either way, it is not helpful for good governance. It should be clear that I am not advocating that we not have critical reviews and/or thoughts over decisions made or contemplated by the government. I am suggesting that we ought to be forward thinking and frank in our expectations and support of a government to govern.

In The Bahamas it is neither rational nor necessary to complain about the government when citizens do not advocate and speak to their members of Parliament. What part are you going to play in the struggles of our country? How are you going to assist the government to make a difference? If it is that you are of the view that just being opposite to every policy decision or administrative action will make for a better democracy, then that may be a role citizens may wish to take on. However, if you want to make a lasting impact by affecting policy today, ensure you communicate with members of Parliament. Citizen action is an essential component of a robust democracy.

The government was elected by the people with a clear and focused agenda. The budget debate always gives citizens and residents an opportunity to critically analyze the direction that the government intends for the country. Are there always areas of focus which can be better aligned to the needs of the country? Will the decisions taken be in our best interest? The answers to these questions are arguably subjective. Objectively, this is a little past the second year of the current administration and in spite of the various views, they must govern.

• John Carey served as a member of Parliament from 2002 to 2007.

June 20, 2014

thenassauguardian

The children of Bahamian independence need to stand and prove that they too possess the skills to govern The Bahamas in the 21st century and beyond... ...We know that the prime ministers past and present can do it, but where is our future? ...It lies in the hands of those born during the autonomous era in the Islands

Democracy, independence and complacency

thenassauguardian editorial

The images and news stories of the Arab Spring that have dominated the international news media for more than a year are a telling story on the importance of the basic concept of democracy, a concept that is spoken about often, but a concept often not fully appreciated. The benefits that are gained from a properly functioning democracy are too often taken for granted.

The beauty of a democracy is that we, the people, get to elect the leaders of our own choosing through a formal process of narrowing down the candidates and casting a vote.

Another key aspect of that electoral process is that there is a time frame in which those elections must come around again.  If we the people are not happy with our leaders, we have the opportunity to elect a new leader, thus holding our leaders to a certain degree of accountability.

The equation is not complicated: Please the people or get voted out of office. The common demands from the people are basic: Provide security (from outside forces and crime at home), infrastructure, jobs and a growing economy.  In other words, provide results.

A true democracy also has a time frame in which there is change.  In The Bahamas, the government must have an election every five years.  In the United States, it is every two years (for House representatives and senators) and four years for the president.  The ability to call for change on a consistent basis allows for stability.

In Egypt, there was no democracy.  Former President Hosni Mubarak was in power for 29 years.  The people fought to depose him.

We must accept that rallies and protests are part of many democracies.  The rallies against the Vietnam War in the United States or those here in The Bahamas against the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) sale are examples.  But these generally don’t call for ousting a leader, just a change in the policy position currently held by the government in power.

But one aspect of a consistent election process that we do not follow is that of term limits.

Sir Lynden Pindling was in power from 1967 to 1992 (25 years).  Hubert Ingraham was in power from 1992 to 2002 and 2007 to 2012 (15 years).  The interim period was held by Prime Minister Perry Christie (five years), who is prime minister again.

Over 44 years we have had three leaders.  The United States over a similar period has had eight leaders, almost triple that of The Bahamas.  The United Kingdom has had 12 leaders, quadruple that of The Bahamas.

The Bahamas has benefited enormously from the perseverance of these leaders for equality, prosperity and peace.  The people of The Bahamas enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes in the region and access to clean water, power and communication.  We have so much to be thankful for.

But it is inevitable that change is upon us.  In the coming years it will be time for a new generation to take governing responsibility for The Bahamas.  We must take heed of the lessons provided by our leaders and understand that independence was won with heart and vigor, not to be forgotten.

We have become complacent in our positions and surroundings, a comfort that shields us from the change happening around us.  To be constantly challenged by our peers and countrymen sets forth a standard that cannot be undermined.

The children of independence need to stand and prove that they too possess the skills to govern a country in the 21st century.  We know that the prime ministers past and present can do it, but where is our future?  It lies in the hands of those born during the  independence era.

May 19, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The very same Perry Christie who failed to fulfill his first duty as Prime Minister in 2002 ...can't condemn violence by his supporters ...or even get out his party's election platform in 2012," says Hubert Ingraham

'Late-Again Plp Criticised For Lacking A Manifesto

By CELESTE NIXON

Tribune Staff Reporter

cnixon@tribunemedia.net

#DESPITE continuing to talk and make promises, opposition leader Perry Christie has still not released his five-year platform, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham pointed out.

DESPITE continuing to talk and make promises, opposition leader Perry Christie has still not released his five-year platform, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham pointed out.

The FNM, by contrast, has already produced a hefty 2012-2017 manifesto, and the DNA has issued a 20-page preview version of its plan.

Speaking at an FNM rally in North Eleuthera Wednesday night, Mr Ingraham said: "The whole election campaign is only four weeks. With a quarter of the campaign behind us, the late-again PLP leader has yet to inform the Bahamian electorate on the details of his election platform.

"His campaign speeches and those of his candidates up to now have been filled with just one thing: Ingraham, Ingraham, Ingraham," the Prime Minister said.

The rally came one day after photographs surfaced of PLP supporters driving over an effigy of an FNM supporter, and Mr Ingraham asked why no one in the PLP has come forward to condemn the act.

He said: "They keep talking about their new plan to address crime. Have you heard anyone in the PLP condemn the symbolic killing of an FNM supporter yesterday?

"They plastered the effigy of an FNM supporter being rolled over by PLP adorned-vehicles in Golden Gates. Now that is an invitation to violence; not a call for peace and respect of the law."

Mr Ingraham said the lack of condemnation by Mr Christie proves nothing has changed in the PLP and that the opposition would only bring "disorganisation and dysfunction" if elected as the government.

"The very same man who failed to fulfill his first duty as Prime Minister in 2002 can't condemn violence by his supporters, or even get out his party's election platform in 2012," said Mr Ingraham.

"Doesn't that sound like nothing has changed?"

April 20, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Focus is needed on reforming our parliamentary process... The legislature is one of three branches of government... Let’s start with a simple thing: schedule questions to the prime minister

Prime Minister's Questions needed in Parliament

thenassauguardian editorial



The phone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom involving the now closed tabloid News of the World (NoW) has dominated world news the past few weeks. It’s really the perfect scandal. It involves money, power, the media and politics. The only thing missing is sex. And who knows, as fast as this scandal is evolving, that may come too, soon.

The actions of NoW have led to police investigations, criminal charges and parliamentary inquires. British Prime Minister David Cameron has been under fire because he hired a former NoW editor, Andy Coulson, to be his director of communications. Coulson has stepped down from this post because of questions about his role regarding the scandal while at NoW.

The opposition Labour Party has questioned Cameron’s judgment in hiring Coulson. Opposition Leader Ed Milliband has challenged Cameron for weeks in the House of Commons on the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The weekly question period is a delight, and an important part of the democratic process. Every Wednesday the prime minister answers questions from the dispatch box beginning with questions from the opposition leader. These are wars during which the PM takes heat from his constitutional rival, giving the same back in return.

The questions are usually topical and the PM is pressed to answer even when he prefers not to. After the leader of the opposition is finished other MPs ask their questions. The question period lasts for about 30 minutes.

In the Westminster system PMs are the country’s CEO. As chairman of the cabinet, he is charged with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the government. Therefore, via Questions to the Prime Minister the government is held in the dock to account in Parliament for decisions made every week Parliament meets.

Alas, there is no system of questions to the prime minister in our parliament. There is almost no question system at all in practice. Opposition day is supposed to be every second Wednesday in the month when the House of Assembly meets.

On this occasion, the opposition is supposed to be able to pose questions. However, clever governing sides simply do not meet on this day and if the opposition does not push, there could be no opposition day for a long time.

It is sad that many of our politicians are so Third World in their mentality that a governing side would attempt not to have to answer questions and an opposition would be so pathetic that it would let its rights be violated.

Rules need to be adopted in Parliament to ensure that the PM has to take questions on a weekly basis as is done in the UK. If that is too much for our politicians then we could adopt a hybrid system through which questions are posed to the government in general on a weekly basis. The member most capable could answer those questions.

For this to work, though, both sides would have to respect the sacrosanctity of Parliament, its rules and conventions. Leaders should want to answer questions. Why? Well, because it proves that they are tough enough, smart enough and in charge enough to withstand any assault from rivals.

Conversely, the opposition should want to ask questions to prove it is better able to run the affairs of state and to weaken the position of the governing side.

The contrast of these two positions should create beautiful intellectual wars in the legislature. It is still a joy to watch old clips from Margaret Thatcher at the dispatch box taking questions from her rivals.

When independence was granted by the British to its colonies, there was a fear that many were not ready for self-governance. The concern was that an elite segment of some of these native societies simply wanted to be in charge knowing little of, and having even less respect for, the traditions and conventions of Westminster governance.

Our parliamentary process needs improvement. We simply touch on one thing that needs reform in this piece. Other problems include the non-existent committee system; members reading from texts they did not write rather than debating issues they studied; and the slow process of relevant legislation coming forward.

We condemn in the strongest terms the myopia of all of the majority rule and post-independence governments for not building a new parliament. The inadequate buildings currently being used are more than 200 years old. We need not explain again why they are inadequate. One needs only to visit to see why.

Focus is needed on reforming our parliamentary process. The legislature is one of three branches of government. Let’s start with a simple thing: schedule questions to the prime minister. If they can’t figure out how to do it, our politicians should just go online and print out a copy of the British process. It’s been going on for quite a while.

Jul 21, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The social vision of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and the Catholic social tradition

Hubert Ingraham’s inclusive social vision

FRONT PORCH

BY SIMON

To compare the social vision of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham with that of the Catholic social tradition is not to suggest that they are identical. But they do bear a resemblance which led to collaboration between the prime minister and the late Archbishop Lawrence Burke, S.J., on a variety of ground-breaking social initiatives.

Bishop Burke, a Jesuit, was never seized by the hackneyed theology of those religionists who view politics and statecraft as inherently corrupt. “He understood modern life and the challenges of those responsible for the conduct of the business of state... ” He saw government as an indispensable means of advancing the common good and often preferred dialogue and private persuasion over hectoring and haranguing national leaders.

This does not mean that he did not have a prophetic voice. He famously and publicly chastised a now sitting member of Parliament for the latter’s comments related to the illegal migration of Haitians to The Bahamas. Bishop Burke’s response was swift and unequivocal, emanating from a first principle that ordered his social witness and mission and efforts in the realm of social justice.

It is the same principle or lodestar that has guided Hubert Ingraham’s ethic of care and compassion and his extraordinary social agenda: the defence of the dignity of the human person. Guided by this principle, Mr. Ingraham has expended political capital and energy combating inequality, prejudice and discrimination while expanding social and economic justice and mobility.

Remarkable

What is remarkable for a man of his age and times is that he has fiercely resisted the temptation to stigmatize various social groups or to pander to the baser instincts of some in The Bahamas who seek to maintain old prejudices or to scapegoat others.

The country often acknowledges those women from Dame Dr. Doris Johnson to Dr. Sandra Dean-Patterson who have enhanced women’s rights. Along with them, any hall of fame honoring champions of female equality must include Hubert Ingraham.

He has appointed or facilitated women attaining high office in government, including an unprecedented number of women to senior cabinet portfolios, and the first female chief justice and governor general, as well as senior posts in the public service.

Mr. Ingraham’s successive administrations instituted sweeping social legislation to secure greater opportunity for and to advance the equality of women and their children. As Hubert Ingraham was acting vigorously and boldly to improve women’s rights, there were some who conspicuously and in a self-congratulatory manner made speeches, travelled the globe and even collected awards for supposedly being champions of women’s rights.

When the courage of conviction was needed both of these evaporated in the face of political opportunism by some. It was Hubert Ingraham who was the profile-in-courage and proved to be more committed to feminist ideals when it came to amending the Constitution to make Bahamian women equal to men in the automatic transmission of citizenship to their children born to a non-Bahamian spouse.

Sadly, the party of Dame Doris Johnson failed to redeem itself on this glaring constitutional omission. It was the PLP who, at the Independence Conference in 1972, did not support the FNM’s progressive view that Bahamian men and women should enjoy equality in all things including this citizenship question.

During a break in the formal talks in London, when a senior PLP leader was pressed by an FNM delegate on the matter, the flippant response was that if Bahamian women got such a right, they would then want the right to use the men’s bathroom.

Opportunism

In the 2002 constitutional referendum, the PLP seemed on the verge of correcting a mistake it made three decades earlier, initially voting in favor of the citizenship question in the House of Assembly. But rank and hypocritical opportunism hijacked the remnants of progressive and liberal ideals that were calcifying in a party that abandoned the struggle for equality for Bahamian women on various fronts.

Returned to office in 2002 with the promise of constitutional reform and purportedly ardent female and male proponents of women’s rights and equality in the Cabinet, the PLP for a third time failed to do the right thing constitutionally on behalf of Bahamian women.

Then came the matter of proposed domestic rape legislation. Last week in a speech at a celebration luncheon for the 30th anniversary of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, Prime Minister Ingraham noted:

“It is an unfortunate and painful reality that when one seeks to equalize conditions that are glaringly offensive, the effort sometimes fails to attract support from those who would benefit.

“This was most recently demonstrated, for example, by the public debate which arose around my government’s initiative to extend protection in law to married women who may be abused by their husbands.”

He continued:

“Indeed, it appears that many in our society, both male and female, are not yet convinced that women are equal; instead stubbornly holding on to outmoded and long discredited 19th century social mores and laws which regarded women as chattel, incapable of making their own decisions and unqualified to vote, own property or defend themselves against the decisions of male relatives.”

While it is disheartening that such a regressive mindset still pertains among many, the sickening reality is those flamboyantly dressed in progressive garb, who mercilessly exploit such regressive mindsets for political advantage.

Courageous

Refreshingly, the PLP has been more progressive on removing discrimination against gays and lesbians and protecting such persons. It was the Pindling administration that decriminalized consensual sexual acts between gay people of consenting age.

In 1998 when a cruise ship with gay passengers travelling to Nassau stirred up the fire and brimstone and scapegoating and hypocrisy of some religious leaders and other belligerents, Hubert Ingraham made one of the most courageous and progressive responses ever by a Bahamian prime minister. It read in part:

“I have been chilled by the vehemence of the expressions against gay persons made by some in our newspapers and over our radio talk shows. Admittedly, there have also been expressions of reason and understanding on this matter on the editorial pages but these have been largely lost in a sea of bitter, poorly-reasoned diatribe.”

He pressed further:

“I do not believe that the future of The Bahamas will be placed in danger because chartered cruises by gay persons are permitted to continue to call at Bahamian ports. The future of The Bahamas is not threatened by foreign persons of homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a contagious disease; and it is not a crime in The Bahamas.

“Insofar as family life is concerned, studies conducted in developed nations around the world, most notably in North America and Western Europe, maintain that homosexuals are born and raised by well-adjusted loving heterosexual parents; and that well-adjusted homosexuals have given birth to and raised well-adjusted heterosexual children. While research has not been conducted in The Bahamas, the results would very likely be quite similar among Bahamians.

“An individual’s right to privacy is a basic human right cherished by all people. It is a right which citizens of democratic countries expect to be respected by their government.”

Option

One of the modern additions to the Catholic social tradition was a more pronounced and articulated option for the poor which placed the needs of the poor more deliberately at the heart of Roman Catholicism’s witness on social and economic justice.

Hubert Ingraham’s unrelenting, expansive and dogged focus on responding to the poor and promoting social and economic mobility grew out of his own life story and remarkable personal and public journey.

From helping to stimulate job creation to social development efforts in housing, education and health care, he has uplifted thousands of our poorer citizens. His massive increases in social assistance and landmark social legislation has helped to alleviate the burdens of poorer Bahamians whose daily struggles and ambitions he knows by lived experience.

In his person and his policies he has upheld the dignity of poorer and vulnerable Bahamians. While it is easy for some to caricature him because of his sometimes gruff personality, history will recall that he responded in a more Christian manner to various matters of social concern than some of his supposedly Christian critics including some religious leaders who presumed to be able to read the heart and soul of Hubert Ingraham.

History will also recall that his record of care and compassion will be measured in countless deeds, not the rhetoric of those who talk about compassion but whose records pale in comparison.

Moreover, Hubert Ingraham has enacted a more progressive and socially liberal agenda than those who cloak themselves in progressive rhetoric easily abandoned at the altar of greed and political convenience.

When a then former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham retires he will be able to go fishing, at peace with his record and his conscience that he significantly advanced the cause of social justice and progressive politics. Even some who now cuss or criticize him on a regular basis may eventually do some soul searching and reflection. And, maybe they will accord him the recognition that is his due for creating a more progressive, tolerant and just Bahamas.

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

Jun 28, 2011

Caribbean Blog International

Philip ‘Brave’ Davis - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) deputy leader: “I am committed to ensuring that Perry Gladstone Christie is the next prime minister of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and that the PLP is returned to power,”...

Davis affirms commitment to Christie


BRENT DEAN
NG Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com



Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) deputy leader Philip ‘Brave’ Davis yesterday publicly affirmed his commitment to assisting Leader of the Opposition Perry Christie in his bid to become prime minister again after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham told Parliament on Thursday that Davis recently told Free National Movement (FNM) supporters Christie is not his leader.

“I am committed to ensuring that Perry Gladstone Christie is the next prime minister of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and that the PLP is returned to power,” said Davis in a statement.

“No political mischief, false accusations, fabricated stories or propaganda will change the widely held public view that Hubert Ingraham must go and must go now.

“Our country deserves better than Hubert Ingraham and the FNM and their lame attempts to distract from their failures in every major area of governance.”

Ingraham also said PLP Elizabeth Member of Parliament Ryan Pinder, who was also on the recent trip to Cat Island where Davis’ alleged remarks were made, said that he is allied to Davis.

“Mr. Ingraham is politically desperate. He can see the writing on the wall. It is sad that of all the serious matters facing our country and the important matters discussed and debated in Parliament over the past few days that such utterances could find a place of prominence in the news cycle,” said Davis, who is also the Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador MP and the PLP’s national campaign coordinator.

Referring to a United States Embassy cable from 2003 published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks, Davis said Ingraham and the FNM have their own divisions.

“What is factual and supported by evidence though is that Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette does not have the support of his leader, Hubert Ingraham,” said Davis.

Ingraham told the Americans, according to the cable, that the best thing that could happen would be for Symonette to challenge for the FNM leadership, because he “would be beaten so soundly that it would shatter all his illusions.”

But at the FNM convention more than two years later, Symonette did not challenge for the leadership. He went for deputy leader and won. He was made deputy prime minister when the party won at the polls in 2007.

It is known within the PLP that Davis would someday like to be the leader of the party. However, based on Christie’s overwhelming victory at the PLP’s October 2009 convention, it appears that Christie will hold on to the post of PLP leader until he decides to give it up. More than 80 percent of voting PLPs supported Christie at that convention.

Jun 11, 2011

thenassauguardian

Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet is still unfathomable to many Bahamians

Branville McCartney’s Folly


by Simon


Former junior minister Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet under three years is still unfathomable to many Bahamians. Just as his statements since his return to the backbench have proven baffling and contradictory, his stated reasons for leaving remain inexplicable. He claims not to have left over a matter of policy.

In parliamentary systems such as ours, cabinet experience is not a prerequisite for serving as prime minister. Still, it provides one of the best training cum proving grounds for the office. Cabinet service is where a potential chief executive is observed and graded by multiple audiences, including the public at large.

In significant ways, ministers are more closely vetted by those who see them up- close, including civil servants and various national stakeholders. They are sized-up by their party faithful and opposition parties. There is relentless media scrutiny. Yet, there is a smaller though no less critical audience a future prime minister has to impress.

Cabinet is where the nation’s business is prioritized, and where fateful decisions are made affecting the country for generations. Only those who have sat in cabinet truly understand the burdens, the capacity to do so much good for so many, as well as the risk of doing great harm or not doing enough.

People with healthy egos and considerable ambition tend to sit in the cabinet, collaborating and competing. As they wrestle with endless decisions on a dizzying array of issues, they are constantly taking each other’s measure.

PERSPECTIVE

They assess each other as equals and identify who among them may be the best to serve as the first among equals or prime minister. They have a unique perspective. It is a perspective which considers many of the characteristics and skills needed in a potential prime minister at a particular stage in a country’s history.

Though the mild-mannered Clement Attlee did not possess the sizzling charisma of Winston Churchill, he was Labour’s choice to fight the 1945 British general election against the roaring lion who had just triumphantly led the United Kingdom through World War II.

Churchill and his Conservatives lost in a landslide to Atlee’s Labour Party which ushered in the most sweeping social and welfare reforms in British history, including the National Health Service.

Mr. Attlee obviously had to win public support. But before that he had to win the confidence of his party, parliamentary and cabinet colleagues, who were peers of great ambition, strong character and ability.

He had to be tested in terms of his judgement and ability to govern, steadiness under pressure and resilience, and what today we call multiple intelligences, including those of style and substance.

In the political realm, the former refers to one’s political and personal touch, the latter to intellectual capacity. That intellectual capacity includes an ability to appreciate the complexities of various issues, curiosity and a willingness to grow.

Having left the cabinet, the Bamboo Town MP seems more interested in making the case for himself as a future prime minister in the press. In so doing, he has removed himself from one of his toughest audiences as well as one of the best training grounds for prime minister.

There are newcomers who do not follow the traditional path to the ultimate political prize, though these tend to be the exception. And such exception demands exceptional politicians.

Barack Obama and David Cameron are young leaders who, despite relatively few years at the highest levels of national politics, proved exceptional enough to respectively become US President and British Prime Minister in record time.

In addition to impressing media, business and opinion leaders, both won over their political peers and party members and officials. Is Mr. McCartney casting himself in the likes of Messrs. Obama and Cameron? If so, he is not doing terribly well.

The country and his former cabinet colleagues know that he is ambitious. But that ambition does not appear to be tied to great purpose or ability. He has not offered the predicate for why he should be the nation’s chief executive.

In public statements and parliamentary interventions, Mr. McCartney has proven intellectually underwhelming and often glib, seemingly more comfortable with clichés and off the cuff remarks than substantive ideas or vision. Only his cabinet colleagues know how much -- or little -- he offered around the table.

COLLECTIVE

His contention that he left because of being underutilized and insufficiently challenged seems odd. Immigration is a substantial brief with considerable challenges. The rookie politician also had an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate his judgement on the numerous issues which confronted the cabinet as a part of the principle of collective responsibility.

Instead of hunkering down and wrestling with the not so sexy issues and nuts and bolts of government, Mr. McCartney abruptly left. It was an unusual decision given the enormous opportunity and privilege.

Some feel that Mr. McCartney has charisma or style, making him popular with various supporters. But popularity or friends on Facebook is not synonymous with real support. He has also been described by some as being adept at public relations.

A facility with staging events and working the press is not the same as having a compelling message that is considered and serious. In party councils and parliamentary meetings, Mr. McCartney’s colleagues are underwhelmed.

His interventions in the House are rambling, his debating skills are not the strongest and his policy analysis is typically weak. On various immigration matters he often seemed to play to the gallery and nativist instincts.

Significant numbers of illegal migrants have been repatriated to their countries before and after Mr. McCartney’s time at Immigration. Further, he did not stay long enough to institute many of the reforms needed in immigration policy, including modernizing the Department of Immigration.

Mr. McCartney decided to leave cabinet at a moment of considerable historical significance. Instead of staying to help make the many momentous decisions during some of the more difficult days of the recent global financial crisis and now a tentative recovery, he left his post.

He was not in the mix when many of the tough calls were made. He stayed on the margins and in the press mostly noting what his former colleagues had done wrong and at times suggesting what he would have done.

Some observers suggest that Mr. McCartney is stylizing himself after Hubert Ingraham, who made his mark by leaving Sir Lynden Pindling’s cabinet and then retiring his former leader. The historic and character parallels between Mr. Ingraham and Mr. McCartney are weak, with the latter lacking the former’s prodigious intellectual and political skills, not to mention the issue of motive in each case.

TUTORIAL

To better understand Mr. Ingraham’s skills and hone his own, Mr. McCartney would have been wiser had he stayed in his cabinet to learn up-close from the successful prime minister he wishes to succeed. From Hubert Ingraham he would have enjoyed an unparalleled tutorial in political and executive leadership.

Mr. Ingraham knows that he must prepare for the future leadership of his party and the country after he leaves office. Towards this end, he has publicly noted that he is providing opportunities for a new generation of leaders. One of those was Branville McCartney, who appears to believe that he is ready to be prime minister now.

Many politicians have been felled or had their plans disrupted because of overreach. As he proceeds, Mr. McCartney may want to seek the wise counsel of the Grecian tragedies as the counsel he is keeping is failing him -- miserably.

He might wish to recall the fate of Icarus, who tumbled from great heights to the ground because of unbridled ego and hubris. In addition to the Greeks, Mr. McCartney may wish to immerse himself in the workings of cabinet government.

He may come to better appreciate that in his desire to become first among equals in the cabinet, he needs to demonstrate that he is truly a team player and a peer committed to collective responsibility instead of overweening personal ambition.

Unlike Clement Atlee, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Hubert Ingraham, Mr. McCartney has not come near to convincing his peers and political colleagues that he has the gravitas needed to be prime minister.

In his march of folly, he may wish to remember that he is seeking to become the Bahamian prime minister in a system of collective responsibility, not president of a system such as that of the United States. Yet even in the latter system, one has to win the support of political colleagues, something Mr. McCartney has utterly failed to do.

bahamapundit

Bahamas Blog International

Perry Christie Should be Given a Second Chance to become Bahamas Prime Minister - Says Unscientific Poll Results

Poll Results Say Christie Should Get Second Chance
By IANTHIA SMITH:


It seems Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie is the man most Bahamians want as their prime minister.

On Friday a whopping 60 per cent of callers into Love 97’s talk show "Issues of the Day" said they believe Mr. Christie should be given a second chance to become prime minister.

On Wednesday the same unscientific poll was taken and callers were asked the very same question about Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, but 31 out of 44 of them said Mr. Ingraham should "bow out gracefully" at the end of this current term.

However, on Friday, the majority of callers had a completely opposite opinion about Mr. Christie.

"I fully endorse him as prime minister again," one caller said. "I just want to make the point that in this day and time it’s all about the economy and these rough times. Under his administration I had two jobs, now I only have one."

"Yes, I do believe Mr. Christie should have a second term," another caller said.

A third caller to the show said, "This country should give Mr. Christie a second chance because we need a gentleman of calm character so that that can resonate down in our society to our young men and women."

"I think he deserves a second chance," another Christie supporter said. "What we need more than ever now is national healing particularly in view of the headlines steaming today. (We) need someone who is not divisive."

Some other callers to the show who think Mr. Christie deserves a second chance said: "I think he’s a better leader than Hubert Alexander Ingraham. He wouldn’t have put all those taxes on our back like Ingraham did."

"I think Mr. Christie is a caring person, so give him a second chance."

"I think Mr. Christie did a good job when he was in office."

"Definitely he deserves a second chance. He is the best leader at this time."

He should be given a second chance because of his historic record in terms of wealth created for Bahamians; his performance was second to none."

"He’s fair, nice and sincere."

"It’s not even debatable. Mr. Christie should be given a second chance."

But not everyone was of this view.

Some callers said Mr. Christie should not be given a second chance to lead the country as he does not have the backbone to do so.

The callers who were against Mr. Christie’s running again said they do not believe he is the right man to deal with the many challenges facing the country now.

They said taking into consideration crime, unemployment, the economy and the youth, they believe Mr. Christie is not prepared to tackle these issues.

"I don’t think he would be able to lead the PLP in this upcoming election," one female caller said. "He shouldn’t be given a second chance."

"He couldn’t control the people on his cabinet," a male caller added. "So no, he doesn’t deserve a second chance."

"He is too afraid to make a decision," another caller said.

"I don’t think he should get a second chance, he doesn’t deserve it."

"I don’t think so; his constituency is one of the most depressed in the whole Bahamas."

"I don’t think Mr. Christie should be given another term to govern this country."

"I don’t think that he would be the best person at this time."

"Mr. Christie didn’t come through for a lot of Bahamians," a female caller added. "He does not deserve a second chance."

"No, he doesn’t deserve a second chance," another said. "Serious times call for serious leaders at the helm."

July 26th, 2010

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham admits non-disclosure

By JUAN MCCARTNEY ~ Guardian Senior Reporter - juan@nasguard.com:



Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham yesterday admitted that like many other members of Parliament, he has not been complying with the Public Disclosures Act for the past several years.

"The last one I did was the day before the election in 2007," said the prime minister in a candid interview with The Nassau Guardian in his office at the Churchill Building yesterday.

Ingraham was responding to questions raised after a Guardian investigation uncovered that published public disclosure among elected and publicly appointed officials has basically become a thing of the past.

"I saw your story and we will give some attention to that," Ingraham said when asked if he was aware of the issue. In fact, Ingraham admitted that, "the Public Disclosures Act is not being adhered to by members of Parliament."

The last disclosures published were done on November 3, 2004. However, that information was only current up to the end of 2000.

On Tuesday, the prime minister said that he has all of his financial statements up to end of last year in order and has only to turn them in.

"I brought all of mine up to date," Ingraham said. "I've prepared all the others for 2007 and 2008. I haven't filed them yet, but I'll file '07, '08 and '09 between now and the end of March and early April."

With an entrance tucked in a corner behind the Office of Government Publications and next to the Royal Bahamas Police Force Drug Enforcement Unit's Marine Division on East Bay Street, it's easy to see how somebody could have difficulty locating the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) if no one explained exactly where it is located.

The secreted location of the PDC might be one reason public officials have trouble turning in their disclosures.

For years, various parliamentarians have claimed that the disclosure laws are more to allow the public a glimpse into their private lives.

However, the law - drafted in 1976 - was created specifically to ensure that elected and publicly appointed officials do not enrich themselves off of the public purse.

As far as how the Ingraham administration will address its own elected and publicly appointed officials' delinquencies, Ingraham said that he was in no position to tell other public officials to disclose their financial information in light of his own transgressions.

"The first thing I must do is bring myself up to date before I have the moral authority to ask others to do so," Ingraham said. "I've done so up to 2007 and I haven't done so since. I don't seek to find any excuse for not having done so. I just haven't done it. But I'll do it."

The penalty for not disclosing the information or providing incorrect information is a $10,000 fine and/or two years in prison.

To be fair, even though the information is ultimately forwarded to Cabinet, the process for public disclosure is that all information is to be submitted to the PDC, then audited by its appointed board, according to sources within the PDC.

Why two administrations have passed and a third has almost reached the halfway mark with no new information having been published since 2004 is a question that has yet to be answered.

When contacted last week, the head of the PDC, Oswald Isaacs, said he wasn't prepared to sit for an interview because he had only recently been appointed to the post.

Isaacs referred The Guardian to the secretary of the commission, who did not return messages left for him.

What was gathered from multiple sources is that the hold up usually occurs in Cabinet. Getting anyone connected to Cabinet to confirm that proved fruitless. Cabinet meetings are considered top secret.

It is also understood that if even one person required to make public disclosure fails to do so, the entire process is held up.

Also, the verification process was said to take quite some time.

But how a government that produces a yearly budget for dozens of government departments outlining thousands of line items in minute detail, cannot compile the financial data of fewer than 100 people on a yearly basis is a question that might never be answered.


February 10, 2010

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International