The modern Quiet Revolution in The Bahamas must find root in the development of a cosmopolitan society ...that has no boundaries, no barricades, no social or economic discrimination or segregation ...and no lofty height that could not be attained by the hard work, sustained commitment and discipline of the masses ...It must be a pedestal for the souls of the liberators of the 1967 revolution

A reset of the Quiet Revolution: Towards a new path

RAYNARD RIGBY

We have just marked (and for some, celebrated) the first national Majority Rule Day. Due to the lackluster treatment of the holiday, the significance of the journey to 1967 and the bravery of the faces of the Quiet Revolution must be understood and shared so as to gain a national understanding of why we should pause and reflect on that path in our nation’s struggle.

Much can be said about the successes and failures of our nation in the post-Majority Rule era. There is no denying  that we have made tremendous progress. Since then, the majority has maintained control and has dominated the national political landscape.

This is a singular success of 1967. However, for many, 1967 was (correctly) more than just about the darts and arrows of party politics, or about Pindling for that matter. It marked the culmination of a revolution. Like most revolutions which generally focus on the overhaul of a system or the removal of dictatorial regimes or practices, the Quiet Revolution was grounded in a movement towards the upliftment of a people; of the institutionalization of equal rights and the charting of a national course for the collective advancement of a people, without boundaries, borders, fear or favor.

The truth too is that 1967 was not a struggle to attain black-power-like dominance. This may be startling in light of the fact that there was a prevalent culture of class and race inequality.

The Bay Street oligarchy — the minority — was the reservoir of both economic and political power. They “ran things” and in so doing they held the keys to the future of the majority. However, one glaring and compelling evidence of the cross-race movement that gripped the march to 1967 is the fact that the founders of the Progressive Liberal Party — Henry Taylor, William Cartwright and Cyril Stevenson — were not men of the negro race (arguably they were mulattoes). However, given the class-race culture in the islands at that time they would have enjoyed a pass to enter the socio-economic sub-middle-class.

Understanding 1967 and the magic of the revolution perhaps requires us to be in the bodies and minds of the Exumians and their heroic leader, Pompey. It is to be on the Burma Road revolt at the height of the fight for social justice. It is to join the marches with the suffragists. It is to stand with Clifford Darling and the taxi union in their push for fair standards and practices. It is to hear the voice of Milo Butler as he bellowed out the unfair and discriminatory treatment of working Bahamians. It perhaps is also to stand with Etienne Dupuch and Gerald Cash in their fight in the legislature for the passage of an anti-discrimination resolution. And it requires us to think of what led young minds like Lynden Pindling, Arthur Hanna, Orville Turnquest, Paul Adderley, Arthur Foulkes, Spurgeon Bethell, Oscar Johnson and Warren Levarity, and many others, to organize and join the “people’s struggle” to take on a system that held political power for decades by standing as candidates in the 1962 general election.

The fight of the “majority” was not simply a mission for the further “emancipation” of the former slaves. It was a movement deeply embedded in the spirit of the uniqueness, talent, industriousness and sheer discipline of our history, culture and people. Its central focus was the “final” liberation of the Bahamian soul.

The truth therefore is that 1967 and the ushering in of the first black Bahamian government was a victory for the creation of a more fair and just society.  The myth that must be dispelled is the simplistic notion that the revolution was for the majority, being limited to the blacks.

The revolution was larger than that. It did not have a singular or non-representational agenda or concentration. It was a fight to usher in a sacred sanctity for the natural evolution of the Bahamian spirit. Its embodiment of a communal vision was expressed in the early days of the Citizens Committee which recognized that those blessed to live on these shores were not ordinary but were destined to be a great people, no matter one’s color, creed, religious and political persuasions, abilities and gender.

Simply put, it was a broad social “movement” that saw its constituents as all Bahamians, blacks and whites. It was not discriminatory (whether direct or reverse), but rather progressive and inclusive. It was not class or race conscious. It was liberal and forward thinking.

In today’s analysis of the events that lead to 1967, we must broaden our appreciation for its purpose and value to the development of The Bahamas. It freed a once dormant spirit and it ushered in a push towards a new socio-economic platform that saw the advancement of many Bahamians of the post-1967 generation. It is therefore undeniable that it has its singularly success in the many thousands of faces of Bahamians who advanced far beyond the boundaries of poverty.

The revolution was also transformative, yet in some areas of national life, we have lost our way. We appear (now) to place less emphasis on ensuring the creation of a nation that trends towards common goals and aspirations. We sometimes give the “air” of being a people without direction and focus, and with little national priorities. In areas of our national lives mediocrity is the order of the day. We are devoid of the old values that cemented our “village”. There is an absence of a “collective” national vision. The nation appears to be stagnant and there is a growing sense of hopelessness. Our national leadership seem to enjoy a deficiency of nationalism and we appear to be lost, lacking an agenda towards the further modernization of this nation state. We have lost our progressive edge.

We need to press the reset button to recreate that sense of national purpose, unity and singular call to arms. Our nation’s detour of that purist path must cease and we must restore that once compelling national psyche housed within us.

We must also abandon that elitist attitude that we have achieved all that abounds. We must embrace a new political dispensation that restores us to the paths trod by the revolution. This begs for a recognition that the revolution’s message is relevant and necessary in today’s “modern” Bahamas.

It appeals for a national recommitment to the core and sacred principles of that glorious era so that the new and growing “minority” can be freed from the chains that enslave them. These are the “new” chains of institutionalized poverty, rampant social dislocation and disorder, a glass ceiling that deprives them of social promotion, a system that appears to be ignorant of their plight, struggles and way of life and a society which is shrinking in intellectualism and dynamism.

There is no denying the reality that the tenets of the 1967 revolution can find much space in the modern Bahamas. We have not outgrown her core principles. We should still cry out for bold and progressive leadership which is glued to the idealism of social justice, equality and economic liberation.

We must fill the vacuum for an agenda and plan that is holistic and nationalistic and that has at its core the creation of a society grounded on the foundational pillars of shared prosperity and community. That sense of community though is not restricted to an egotistical definition of national heritage and identity. It is an all-embracing journey that ties together the virtues of productivity, industry, integrity, knowledge, love and peace transcending a narrow interpretation of who is Bahamian.

The modern revolution must find root in the development of a cosmopolitan society that has no boundaries, no barricades, no social or economic discrimination or segregation, and no lofty height that could not be attained by the hard work, sustained commitment and discipline of the masses. It must be a pedestal for the souls of the liberators of the 1967 revolution.

Our work is not yet complete. We must find our voices and courage to stand firm to secure the dreams of the future generations of Bahamians. Our country must be restored to that nobler path of prosperity, peace and love.

 

• Raynard Rigby is an attorney-at-law and former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.

January 22, 2014

thenassauguardian

The long awaited revolution in The Bahamas

The Cuban Detainees And The Long-Awaited Revolution

By Rupert Missick Jr

THERE are a generation of Bahamians, men in particular, who in their minds missed out on their opportunity to make revolution … not necessarily “the revolution” or “a revolution” but any revolution.

 

They have a subconscious fear that they will close the final chapter of their lives as tepid footnotes in the annals of our history.

 

You see, they were old enough to have fed on the godlike words of Martin Luther King Jr, to drink the prophetic sermons of Malcolm X and bathed in the hot bath of Newton and Seal’s Black Panther Philosophy but were too young to do anything about it other than channel their teenage and collegiate angst to sympathize and dream of the day when they too could really speak truth to power.

 

They read the fiery words of CLR James and Fanon and believed that one day, when they had their turn in directing the wheel of the nation’s progress, that “Wretched of the Earth” would become the basis of their national and foreign policy.

 

They envied the testicular fortitude of Fidel Castro, Jomo Kenyatta and Nelson Mandela and promised themselves that when it was their turn, they would be no less of a man than they were.

 

This was the generation who, as doe-eyed children looked upon Butler, Pindling, Hanna and Foulkes on the platforms of the Southern Recreation Grounds as they clung to the hem of their mommy’s housecoat.

 

These are the ones who sat at a distance when the founding fathers heatedly debated Independence under the shade of their newly hard fought for political power.

 

But when they came of age, their bodies eager to convert that potential energy into a kinetic force of progressive postcolonial action, they found that the Caesar of the day, unlike his Roman counterpart, had indeed surrounded himself with fat, sleek-headed men.

 

They found a Bahamas that was no longer willing to, or at least did not see the need to march, to rebel, to revolt and even if they did, who would it be against?

 

The colonialist, beaten and worn by the blitz and the strain the colony placed on their purse, were gone and happy to leave; the white men who ran Bay Street, while an ever present and available scapegoat had been virtually castrated and became, in their estimation, regrettable partners in building this new nation.

 

The country to the north that Cuba and Jamaica had once defied was now sacrosanct and the source of most imports and the reason behind most jobs.

 

They found themselves in a place where the sexiness of the physical struggle against oppression was gone and the romance of a postcolonial world was a smouldering ember in the campfire of greater men than they were.
 

They woke up with the reigns of political power, and by extension the means to direct economic power, in their hands.

 

So, now, if their revolution would come, it would come for them.

 

They were now faced with being actors in a more difficult kind of revolution. This revolution would require a more existential change; a revolution of consciousness, a revolution that would require them to abandon their new found comfort and launch into unchartered waters.

 

It required them to be creative, to reject the perpetuation of paternalism, of tribalism to teach a new reality to a new people.

 

But they failed. It was too abstract for them; it was not the kind of fight they were looking for.

 

This was a fight that was complicated, required work and had no clear enemy. In fact, in this fight sometimes they were the enemy and other times the people were the enemy. But how could you ever admit that out loud?

 

No, better resurrect the ghosts of the enemies from the decades before, the “hidden, outside forces” that they wanted to fight in the 60s and 70s.

 

Perhaps the biggest opportunity of their lifetime would have been to transform the Bahamas’ constitution into a progressive, modern document that could have been the envy of the hemisphere.

 

But through negotiations between tradition and the status quo we were served a bland report which amounted to a watered down porridge of convenience, necessity and compromise.

 

With the more “radical” positions on the Constitutional Commission beaten back by “reality”, this great post-colonial Bahamian generation now faces a future where they will die with their Queen or her successors reigning over them, a bicameral parliamentary system with an appointed senate, and a final court of “real adults” in London to correct their judicial errors.

 

In this regard I found the juxtaposition of our Prime Minister standing in the same spot where a great man once drew the attention of his nation to the “fierce urgency of now” and exhorted the world against taking the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism” heartbreaking.

 

I don’t know if that generation will ever understand what they missed, what they had, what they let slip through their fingers.

In the United States, activists like King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers never had the kind of power that the men of their same generation had in the Bahamas.

 

Even today, there is no constitutional power in the United States which is comparable to the power which Mr Christie wields here at home.
 

What could Rep John Lewis, the last living speaker of the original March on Washington, who as a 23 year old led and organized the march from Selma to Montgomery, who faced down the dogs, hoses and state troupers of Southern racists, who is now only three years older than Perry Christie, what could he have done for his country and his people if he possessed the kind of constitutional powers that Mr Christie has now.

 

Mr Christie’s grand appearance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and his call to stand up for “dignity” and “social justice” is punctuated by his laid back response and acquiescence to the counterintuitive, self-destructive approach his minister has taken to handling the controversy of the brutal beating of illegal immigrants at home.

 

Today the language that we hear surrounding the controversy of the Cuban detainees, the frothing, hyperbolic defense of nationhood and national identity, the subtextual suggestion that those who fail to defend the abuse of the detainees are somehow ashamed of their skin colour, the accusations of aid giving to the enemy and promises that political opponents will be crushed, these are the death rattle of a generation desperate to fight a revolution, only it’s not the one that is actually theirs to fight.
 

Our great post-colonial generation missed a teachable moment where honesty, forthrightness and transparency could have not only shortened the length of this issue but could have served as an excellent counterpoint to the malignant dishonesty prevalent in our society.

 

Instead, they hunkered down, wrapped themselves in our flag and warmed themselves with anti-colonial rhetoric.

 

These words neither protect nor advance our nationhood. They are just words and they will never fill the hole that their lack of creativity and courage will leave behind in our society.

 

It’s cheap invective that in the long run means nothing significant to either the world or the future of this country.

 

But in the end, it’s red meat for the base; it’s a pleasant distraction from the work of the long awaited revolution.

September 02, 2013

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

The Advent of The First Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Government in The Bahamas

SIR RANDOL FAWKES AND MAJORITY RULE

“BAY STREET BOYS COULDN’T BUY RANDOL FAWKES”

The Miami Herald

Monday, February 6^th, 1967

Jim Bishop: Reporter

Nassau, The Bahamas - The election returns came in sporadically.  Neither the whites nor the Negroes believed the totals.  Pindling’s P.L.P., which had 10 seats out of the 38 seats in the Assembly, hoped to add a few more.  The United Bahamian Party needed only twenty seats to maintain the control.  They weren’t making it.

A silent horror fell over the mansions in the limestone hills.  A revolution was in progress.  No bullets bounced off the elegant façade of Governor Sir Ralph Grey’s mansion.  The work was being done with ballots.  Ironically, this had been the weapon used by the Bay Street Boys to maintain power over the natives.

ONE BY ONE, the natives began to win the seats. Dr. McMillan in Fort  Charlotte; Maurice Moore in Grand Bahama East; Thompson in Eleuthra; Levartiy in Bimini and West End;  Pindling himself in South Andros.  When all the returns had been counted, it was obvious that the P.L.P. had eighteen seats; the U.P.B. had eighteen; A.R. Braynen, an independent, had one; Randol Fawkes and his Labour party had one.

Nobody had a clear majority.  The winning party always furnishes the Speaker of the House from the elected Assembly, and neither side could do it without dropping to seventeen votes.  At once a night battle began for Braynen’s vote, more important Fawkes’!

Lynden Pindling offered Braynen the Speakership, and it was accepted.  The Speaker had no vote, except when the House is tied. So contending forces remained 18-18.  Fawkes was in his St. Barnabas district, listening to the plaudits of his adherents, when-so he says-the Premier himself paid a personal visit.

SIR ROLAND SYMONETTE is accustomed to having people come to him.  He knew and so did Fawkes, that revolution hinged on a solitary vote. If Bay Street Boys could bring Randol Fawkes to their side, at any price, Pindling and his “colored “government was stillborn.  “Name you terms,” the Premier said.  “Whatever it is, we will meet it.”

Fawkes has a boyish grin that hides embarrassment.  He poured it on.  A few years earlier he had been banished from the islands; had carried cakes of ice in Harlem to keep alive.  Now he could name his “terms” to the Premier of her Majesty’s Government.  Would he ask a million? A half a million and a ministry? 

The Negro said he was sorry.  He had decided to go along with Pindling.  He had no terms; no price.  It is incredible that, in a lazy group of islands where votes can be bought like seashells, man chose not to be rich.  The answer was, “No.”

This gave Lynden O. Pindling a Speaker and a 19-18 majority in the House.  Sir Roland and his Government resigned.  That night people danced in the streets.  Black-tie diners in the Bahamian Club and Buena Vista sipped expensive soups absent-mindedly.  The world had come to an end.

HOME to The Positive Achievements of Sir Randol Fawkes>>>