...as we celebrate 40 years of Bahamian independence ...the time has now arrived for us to complete the process ...and to honor those among us who deserve to be recognized as Bahamian national heroes

Bahamian national heroes pt. 2

Consider This...

BY PHILIP C. GALANIS

“My own heroes are the dreamers, those men and women who tried to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones.  Some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results... but it is the effort that's heroic, as I see it.  Win or lose, I admire those who fight the good fight.”

– George R.R. Martin

Two weeks ago, on October 7, in part one of this series on Bahamian national heroes, we asked whether it was time for us to bring into force a national honors system for Bahamian heroes.  Two days later, on October 9, the prime minister delivered a communication to Parliament announcing that the government would bring the Majority Rule (Public Holiday) Act 2013 into force, ushering in the long-awaited recognition of the day on which majority rule was achieved in The Bahamas, January 10, 1967, as a public holiday.  Accordingly, the first public holiday to commemorate that singularly important event will be celebrated next year on January 10, 2014.

In the same communication, the prime minister announced that the National Heroes Act 2007 would also come into force on Friday, October 11, 2013, replacing the day that was previously celebrated initially as Columbus Day and later as Discovery Day as National Heroes Day.  And so said, so done!

This week, we would like to Consider This… is it time for us to complete the process of bringing into force a national honors system for Bahamian heroes?

A step in the right direction

Without a doubt the official recognition of these public holidays is a gargantuan step in the right direction.  And for this, Perry Christie and his administration should be applauded.  These two important holidays on the Bahamian calendar will forever concretize Christie’s legacy in the annals of Bahamian history.  However, these are first steps and much more is required.

In his communication, the prime minister stated that “National Heroes Day” will be a national holiday to “be observed on the second Monday in the month of October of each year”.  That is not technically correct.  The National Heroes Act specifically states in section 11 that “the 12th day of October”, not the second Monday of October, “will be commemorated as The Bahamas National Heroes Day”.  It is a distinction with a difference, one that, we are certain, will be clarified in the fullness of time.

The advisory committee

The National Heroes Act provides for an advisory committee that will make recommendations as to persons who should be recognized as national heroes.  According to the act, the advisory committee “shall consist of not less than seven members appointed by the prime minister” and be comprised of two senators and two members of the House of Assembly.  In his communication to the House of Assembly, the prime minister correctly observed that, “It would certainly be my wish, Mr. Speaker, that there be one nominee from the government and one nominee from the opposition in each of the House of Assembly and the Senate.  This will ensure optimal balance and parity.  We really do need to take partisanship and political prejudice out of the selection of our national heroes.  To do otherwise would be to debase the whole process and to detract from the sense of national unity and patriotism that should always be exclusively in view when we approach a matter such as this.”

However, if the advisory committee is constituted with the minimum number of persons provided by the act, which is seven, then the advisory committee will be dominated by the four politicians and the majority vote will be able to be cast by those politicians.  Given the profoundly partisan polarization and seemingly intractable political tribalism that has developed in the country over the past decade, this could defeat the objective of removing “partisanship and political prejudice out of the selection” process.  For far too long, an elongated and dark shadow of politics has been cast over most things in our society.  Because, as Christie put it, “this group, this ‘Order of National Heroes’, will be exceedingly small – the rarest of the rare, the greatest of the great”, the selection process must be scrupulously meticulous and not obscured by that shadow – or any other – so that Bahamians, present and future, may be confident in the impartial choices of these exceptional individuals who will carry this extraordinary title and the term “national hero”.

We therefore believe and recommend that, in order to accomplish this objective, the prime minister, in exercising his powers of appointment under the act, should appoint an advisory committee of at least nine persons, and ensure that the majority of the committee will be comprised of non-politicians.  We can only assume and hope that the non-politicos on the committee will be broadly drawn from civil society in such a manner that would firmly instill the public confidence that must be maintained in the selection process.  In addition, we suggest that the chairman of the committee should not be a politician.

The National Honours Act 2007

The National Honours Act 2007 which has not yet been brought into force, provides for the establishment of national honors, including:

• The Order of The Bahamas

• The Order of Excellence

• The Order of Distinction

• The Order of Merit

• Other honors constituted by the governor general after consultation of the advisory committee established under section 13 of the Bahamas National Heroes Act.

It will be critically important to clearly define the criteria that must be satisfied for each of the aforementioned honors and once completed, to begin identifying those deserving souls and to commence conferring such local honors upon them.  As we develop our own criteria, we can draw on the experiences of some of our neighbors: Jamaica’s National Honours and Awards Act, established in 1969, and the National Heroes Act, passed by the Parliament of Barbados in 1998, just to name two.

Conclusion

As we noted in part one of this series and as we celebrate 40 years of Bahamian independence, the time has now arrived for us to complete the process and to honor those among us who deserve to be recognized as Bahamian national heroes.  We should do so in the grand and respectful manner that Bahamian honorees rightly deserve, finally joining our Caribbean counterparts in celebrating our own, in our own way, and showing the world how much we value ourselves and the contributions of our countrymen who have helped to build this 21st century nation.

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

October 21, 2013

Bahamian National Heroes pt. 1

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

From July 10, 1973 to July 10, 2013... ...Reflection on The Bahamas 40 Years of Political Independence from Great Britain

Cecil, Lynden and Milo

By Philip C. Galanis
pgalanis@gmail.com

“Pressing onward, march together, to a common loftier goal…”

 On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, The Bahamas will celebrate 40 years of political independence from Great Britain. This week, as we reflect on the developments in the country over the last 40 years, we would like to Consider This... what would three giants who were intimately involved in the Bahamian march to freedom say about this day? Imagine these three giants, Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, Sir Lynden O. Pindling and Sir Milo B. Butler, looking down from where their spirits are resting and marveling at the progress of these past 40 years. We can imagine the conversation going somewhat like this:

Lynden: I see that the fellas are getting ready to celebrate the 40th anniversary of independence. My, how time has flown!

Milo: It surely has. It seems just like yesterday that we were all fighting for majority rule. Lynden, you and Cecil were very young when I ran for the House of Assembly in July 1938. I believed that the Western seat was safe because it was in a largely black constituency and was traditionally won by non-white candidates. I ran against Harry Oakes, the multimillionaire.

Cecil: Milo, I heard that that was a rough campaign because the white Bay Street oligarchy worked tirelessly to derail you.

Milo: That’s right. They tried every trick in the book to win. First the Royal Bank of Canada, under pressure from the Bay Street Boys, suddenly cut off my credit. Then, on Election Day, Oakes’ representatives distributed money and liquor in a shameless – and successful – attempt to buy votes, right in front of the police who were right there to prevent any disturbances. When it became apparent that I was going to lose, I promised to lodge a protest against the blatant bribery. When the polls closed, a drunken and disorderly mob attacked the police, hurling missiles that injured two officers and two of my supporters were arrested, convicted and jailed for six months.

Lynden: But, Milo, that was a defining moment because the next day you and 40 of your supporters went downtown to the office of the colonial secretary to voice your grievances, causing the colonial secretary to order an investigation of the whole matter. As a result of your petition to the governor calling for a secret ballot, the creation of an Election Court of Appeal and a fairer representation of the black population on all public boards and in the civil service, great changes were to come.

Cecil: Milo, it was your actions that convinced Governor Dundas that the secret ballot was the very least that should be done to defuse the situation. He announced plans to dissolve the House of Assembly and threatened to call a general election in support of the secret ballot. Of course, the members of the House were afraid that the issue of color would be predominant in such an election, so they decided to take a softer approach. In June 1939, they passed an act for a five-year trial period for the secret ballot, but only in New Providence. The Out Islands were where only one third of the voting population resided but they returned two thirds of the members of the House, so Bay Street was very reluctant to tamper with what was, for them, a winning situation. The secret ballot, therefore, did not come to those Out Islands until 1949, 10 years later.

Milo: But that was just the beginning of the long, hard-fought battle for majority rule. It took the Burma Road Riots, the General Strike and Lynden and me throwing the mace and the hour glass out of the House of Assembly to get Bay Street’s attention. We even had to go to the United Nations to make our case against unfair election practices that kept Bay Street in office for so long.

Cecil: And then our prayers were answered by the people on January 10, 1967 when majority rule was finally realized. And what a glorious day that was! We all celebrated with the people.

Lynden: True, but that was the beginning of so many other challenges. Cecil, it wasn’t long before we started to fight among ourselves. You and the other seven left us and formed the Free PLP and then the FNM. The biggest battle that we fought though was based on our decision to seek political independence.

Milo: And what a battle that was! It nearly destroyed our march to a common loftier goal. I remember in 1968, Roland Symonette said that independence was not in the best interest of the people of the Bahamas Islands. Geoffrey Johnstone, the leader of the UBP, said that there was no enthusiasm for independence anywhere. And, Cecil, in May 1971, you told a large gathering that independence now would only serve to break this country into small groups and that there would be countries like Abaco, which would not want to associate with the rest of The Bahamas simply because there had not been sufficient preparation.

Cecil: That is true. I also said that independence should not be sought then, nor any time before the next two general elections. We believed that independence should be a unifying force among Bahamians, not a dividing force among our people.

Lynden: It’s interesting that the newspapers also opposed independence. In September 1970, a Tribune editorial announced that every political organization in the colony outside of the PLP was opposed to any plan for moving into independence. Then, in January 1971, the Tribune editor also wrote that an independent Bahamas would become a threat to the security of the United States and as such, a menace to the Western Hemisphere and that the whole world would become embroiled in conflicts that might arise from an independent Bahamas.

Milo: Yea, Lynden, they always hated you. And The Guardian also opposed independence and wrote that the assumption of independence seemed nothing less than an act of madness. It maintained that at this particular period, with the government still in a state of immaturity and myopia, with the economy still sick, with a substantial amount of investment capital having fled to safer climates, it was hardly the time to be talking of independence.

Lynden: Even some in the church opposed independence. Rev. Murillo Bonaby, pastor of Christ the King Anglican Church, said that the church was scared stiff of independence. But the voices against independence were drowned out by the results of the September 19, 1972 general election when a vote for the PLP signified a vote for independence. The PLP won 29 of 38 seats – the people were loudly and clearly stating their support for independence. At last, once the people supported independence, we all attended the Constitutional Conference in London in December 1972 with a determination to draft the best constitution for our new nation. I have to say that during my entire Parliamentary career, the single most satisfying event was the lowering of the Union Jack and the hoisting of the Bahamian flag at midnight on July 10, 1973.

Cecil: And I have to agree that the constitution has served us well these past 40 years. Despite our intense disagreements and bitter political battles, we have done well as an independent country. I regret not being there on August 19, 1992 when my party won the election. But Lynden, I was happy to see that your erstwhile son, Hubert (Ingraham), finally had an opportunity to make some important changes we had fought long and hard for over many years.

Lynden: I am also pleased to see how well Perry (Christie) led my party to victory in 2002 and again in 2012. I believe we should all be proud of the legacy we left. I am disappointed, though, that, while we achieved political independence for our people, greater economic independence and empowerment of our people still eludes us. That must be the next major challenge for the fellas we left behind.

Milo: True, but look at what has been accomplished in the last 40 years. We established a national insurance program, a College (soon to be University) of The Bahamas, a Central Bank and a defence force and so many other institutions that serve our people. And look at the vast number of Bahamians we educated in so many professional and skilled occupations. Can’t wait to see what will happen in the next 10 years as we approach the 50th anniversary of independence.

Lynden: I agree. You know, when you look at it, we really did build a firm foundation that, year after year, ensures that the nation we left behind will undoubtedly continue pressing onward, and marching together, to a common loftier goal.

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

July 08, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamian History: The Bahamas / Bahamian Independence History

Sir Arthur Addresses Rotaract on Independence History


By Eric Rose
BIS 



NASSAU, The Bahamas – While giving a brief and personal account of Bahamian history, as it relates to Bahamian Independence, Governor-General Sir Arthur Foulkes said that there is “hardly a single event in our history that has had such a profound influence on the future of The Bahamas as the establishment of the House of Assembly ”.

“This institution and its eventual assimilation by Bahamians have contributed mightily to our history of political stability,” Sir Arthur said, while speaking at the Rotaract Club of East Nassau meeting on the topic “On Independence and the Way Forward”, on July 1, 2013, at the British Colonial Hilton.

”The House gave to the residents of these islands a measure of control over their affairs even though the imperial power, Great Britain, retained ultimate responsibility right up to the 10th of July 1973,” Sir Arthur added. “So the Bahamas had what was described as representative but not responsible government.”

Sir Arthur noted that, to be sure, the House, established in 1729, did not confer the status of a modern democracy on The Bahamas.

“That was a long way off;” he said; “but the population, including the black descendants of slaves, recognised the possibilities that this institution offered, and that is why it became, and remains, the ultimate objective of political activity.”

That is why, too, Sir Arthur continued, a racial minority with “varying degrees of support by the British” made access to it difficult for the majority.

“Prior to the 1962 elections when Bahamians for the first time enjoyed universal adult suffrage, voting rights were limited over the years by an array of what were termed qualifications but which were, in fact, obstacles,” Sir Arthur said.

"One had to be male to register to vote. One had to own or rent property of a certain value. One male could vote in every constituency in which he owned or rented property. There was open voting, and open buying of votes. A lawyer could cast a vote for each of the companies registered at his office.”

Elections, Sir Arthur pointed out, were held on different days to accommodate what Sir Etienne Dupuch called “an armada of vessels”: well provisioned with rum and flour, descending on one island after another.

“And, of course, there was gross inequality in the population of constituencies,” Sir Arthur said.

"Out of the white minority had evolved a classical oligarchy (a government by a few, usually privileged) that came to be known as the Bay Street Boys,” he added.

They were the ones, Sir Arthur said, who commanded the armadas of which Sir Etienne (Dupuch) complained, and they dominated Bahamian politics and commerce.

Sir Arthur said that there was, of course, throughout the years, agitation against racism, and for fair treatment of workers, for education and for reform of the political system to make the House of Assembly more representative of the people.

He said that in the 1920s and 1930s there was a group called the Ballot Party, which included a Barbadian tailor named R. M. Bailey and Bahamian politicians C. C. Sweeting and S. C. McPherson. In the 1940s there were others, including Dr. C. R. Walker, Bert Cambridge and Milo Butler.

"Then there was Etienne Dupuch who took over a struggling newspaper, The Nassau Daily Tribune, after World War I and became for many decades a towering figure in Bahamian journalism as well as a politician,” Sir Arthur said.

"Sir Etienne wielded a prolific and acerbic pen,” Sir Arthur stated. “He railed against racism and corruption, against the intransigence (inflexibility) of the oligarchy and the complacency of the British Government. One British newspaper branded him ‘Rebel in the Caribbean’.

“Sir Etienne and his newspaper did more than anybody else during those critical years to foster political consciousness among the Bahamian masses.”

Sir Arthur said that progress was slow; but there was some reform, including the introduction of the secret ballot for New Providence in 1939. One early notable achievement, he added, was the establishment of the Government High School in 1925. Labour unrest continued and exploded in the 1942 riot, Sir Arthur noted.

Sir Arthur said that a “most significant” change took place in the political arena in 1953, when a group of mostly “near-white” Bahamians founded what was to become the first national political party in the country, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

"It was the brainchild of William Cartwright but most of the hard work of organising the party throughout the islands was undertaken by its first Chairman Sir Henry Taylor,” Sir Arthur stated. “Both were members of the House of Assembly having been elected in 1949. Cyril Stevenson was Secretary General and also the flamboyant editor of ‘The Herald’.

"The Bay Street Boys responded by founding the United Bahamian Party (UBP), and the era of party politics came to The Bahamas. In 1956 the PLP gained a foothold in the House with the election of the Magnificent Six: Lynden Pindling, Randol Fawkes, Milo Butler, Cyril Stevenson, Clarence Bain and Sammy Isaacs.”

Almost immediately upon its formation, Sir Arthur said, a group of young black men saw the PLP as a vehicle for the achievement of a full progressive agenda for The Bahamas including the defeat of the UBP, an end to racism, economic and social justice and, ultimately, independence for the country.

They joined the PLP, formed themselves into the National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) and supported the leadership of Sir Lynden Pindling, he added.

"For the first time since the Eleutheran Adventurers, there was serious talk of independence for these islands, but it had not yet become a popular idea,” Sir Arthur said. “When the NCPA held a debate on independence at St. Agnes Auditorium in 1959, they were publicly rebuked by the chairman of the party.”

Sir Arthur said that the general strike in 1958 galvanised the progressive movement in the Bahamas; but the unfair delimitation of constituencies remained and accounted for the PLP’s defeat in 1962, when that party got a majority of the votes cast but still lost the election.

"The UBP still refused to budge on this issue,” he stated. “The report of their Boundaries Commission in April 1965 was the catalyst for the Black Tuesday demonstration, when Sir Lynden threw the Speaker’s mace out of the window of the House of Assembly, and Sir Milo did likewise with the hour glasses the Speaker used to time his speeches.

"Finally, the PLP and Randol Fawkes, representing his Labour Party, succeeded in overthrowing the UBP in January 1967 when Sir Alvin Braynen threw in his lot with them.”

“I regard January 10^th 1967, as the most significant date in Bahamian history since Emancipation.”

Sir Arthur said he and Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield raised the issue of independence on the floor of the House in 1967, after the nerve gas incident.

“The Americans had secured the agreement of the British Government to drop canisters of nerve gas in Bahamian waters despite our objections,” Sir Arthur said.

"The Americans had refused to talk directly to us; but Sir Cecil was included in a British delegation that talked with them in Washington,” Sir Arthur pointed out. “When the Americans assured the delegation that it was safe to drop the nerve gas canisters in Bahamian waters, Sir Cecil responded: ‘If it’s so safe, why don’t you drop them in the Hudson River?’”

"Sir Cecil was so infuriated that he suggested in the House of Assembly that we should consider making a unilateral declaration of independence, so we could have immediate control of our own affairs and our territorial waters,” Sir Arthur said.

Sir Arthur noted that just weeks before the Government announced in 1972 that it would proceed to independence after the upcoming election, Sir Lynden was in London and told a British newspaper that his government was not thinking about independence at that time.

“I suspect the about-face was due to pressure from the Hon. A. D. Hanna who had been a consistent advocate of independence,” Sir Arthur said. “It is one of the ironies of history and politics that some of those who were the most ardent advocates of independence found themselves in opposition in 1972 and opposing independence under the leadership of Sir Lynden.”

"A veritable flood of water – and a little blood -- had gone under the political bridge between 1967 and 1972,” he said.

There was a split in the progressive movement, the formation of a new opposition – the Free National Movement – and some “very tense moments including physical attacks on Sir Cecil and others”, Sir Arthur said.

“But that is history for another day,” he added.

The PLP won the 1972 election and, in December of that year, a Bahamian delegation of Government and Opposition met with representatives of the British Government at Marlborough House in London to agree an independence constitution for The Bahamas, Sir Arthur said.

"There were divisions between the Bahamas Government and Opposition on several issues including rustication, the right to leave one’s country, and equality for women,” Sir Arthur said. “On the latter, the British sided with the Government and the issue of equality for women was lost. That, in my view, remains a flaw in our Constitution 40 years later.”

However, he noted that a “shining moment” was when the Bahamian delegation – Government and Opposition – opposed a British Government proposal to give Bahamian citizenship to a category of persons registered in The Bahamas as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

“It is worth noting that the dismantling of the old colonial system of government started in 1964, when the Bahamas got its first codified Constitution with ministerial government under the UBP,” Sir Arthur said. “Our second Constitution was in 1969, when further responsibilities were granted to the Bahamas Government under the PLP.”

Sir Arthur said that, of those Bahamians who participated in that historic meeting, the following are still alive: A. D. Hanna, George Smith, Loftus Roker, Philip Bethel, Sir Orville Turnquest and himself.

"The Bahamas has the Constitution of a modern parliamentary democracy, which has served us well for 40 years and will, I believe, serve us well for the next 40 and beyond,” Sir Arthur said.

"Our history and our culture contains positive as well as negative influences and characteristics and today we are facing some severe challenges as a result of our own mistakes and the impact of negative influences from outside.”

"The Constitution provides us rights as citizens, and with the framework and rules for the conduct of our affairs,” he added. “The challenges we face can be successfully met with the sustained involvement of all of us as patriotic contributing citizens.”

July 03, 2013

Bahamas.gov.bs

Caribbean Blog International

July 10, 1973 to Now: ...The Bahamas Independence Generation... ...and the story of Majority Rule and Independence... ...The 40th Anniversary

Independence Generation Should Tell Of The Struggle

By Llonella Gilbert - BIS:



NASSAU, The Bahamas -- Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Perry G. Christie said as a proud member of the generation that ushered in The Bahamas’ Independence on July 10, 1973, he feels that while Bahamians cross the bridge to the future, they must see the bridge as a connection to those of the Independence Generation.

The Prime Minister was speaking at the Official 40-Day Countdown Launch Ceremony in Celebration of the 40^th Anniversary of the Independence of The Bahamas in Rawson Square, June 4, 2013.

“Truly, the significance of celebrating the 40^th Anniversary is that this is the last time that both generations will be able to work side by side in marking this pivotal event in our country’s history,” he said.

“This is the last time that we will be able to hear the voices of the Independence Generation and I implore you to listen.”

Prime Minister Christie said the Independence Generation must tell their stories to those who have come afterward.

“We must have them tell us their stories. It may simply be a retelling of a grandmother’s Independence morning experience; it may be the airing of the complete Portraits series; it may be an interview with a member of the Women’s Suffragette Movement, however we do it, it must be done.”

The Prime Minister added that he believes that part of what is right for the country, on this Independence journey, is to record, preserve and honour The Bahamas’ history and culture.

“We have been, in many respects, negligent of our heroes and our history.

“It is vital that every Bahamian, of every background know their history. “Every Bahamian student should be able to tell the story of Majority Rule and Independence.

He said proper attention must be given to these things.

“Our Bahamian heroes must have permanence in the Bahamian Story. We must write it well, so that even after death they live.”

Prime Minister Christie also explained that during his last term as prime minister, he appointed the National Cultural Development Commission with the mission to organise and formulate a wide range of policies and positions on cultural matters.

He said the framework for a National Honours system was passed and this year, deserving Bahamians will receive the country’s own award.

“This public honouring will not only draw the necessary attention to these individuals, it will be the best way that a grateful nation can say thank you.”

The Prime Minister said the National Independence Committee is also working with The College of The Bahamas on hosting the 40^th Anniversary Independence Conference.

The conference, which will be held June 12 – 14, 2013 and is open to the public, will do much to help further educate and examine what the future of The Bahamas can be.

“The aim of the conference is to examine the context and construction of the Bahamian nation; investigate the challenges emerging in the post-independence period; discuss contemporary social, cultural, economic and political issues that have emerged since 1973; and explore future prospects for nation building and development.”

Prime Minister Christie said in planning the celebrations for the Anniversary, the committee felt it was critical to host events that will showcase Bahamian arts and culture.

“I have said before that it is important to the development of our national identity and to the deepening of our Bahamian culture that our artists have a high level of support.

“We often enjoy and celebrate what other nations in the world have offered us and we forget that we have produced many cultural icons who have influenced them.”

June 05, 2013

Bahamas.Gov.Bs

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas Independence... ...40 (forty) years later very many of our Bahamian youth are lost in a haze of Jamaican-grown ganja

Forty Years Later

The Bahama Journal Editorial



We shall – in short order – celebrate this fledgling nation’s fortieth Independence anniversary.


And so, we are today conveniently urged to remember that this nation of ours did some four decades ago have leaders who did dream that this nation of ours would or could be under-girded by a fervent desire for the building of a Bahamas where unity is indivisible – “…a Creation under God of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas…”

Sadly, there now seems a decided drifting away on the part of an untold many from these principles.

In their stead, very many Bahamians in now seem hell-bent on violating the spirit that once animated some of our founding fathers and mothers.

As we revert to the Constitution, we are told that, “Whereas Four hundred and eighty-one years ago the rediscovery of this Family of Islands, Rocks and Cays heralded the rebirth of the New World;

“And Whereas the People of this Family of Islands recognizing that the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law;

“Now Know Ye Therefore: We the Inheritors of and Successors to this Family of Islands, recognizing the Supremacy of God and believing in the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual, Do Hereby Proclaim In Solemn Praise the Establishment of a Free and Democratic Sovereign Nation founded on Spiritual Values and in which no Man, Woman or Child shall ever be Slave or Bondsman to anyone or their Labour exploited or their Lives frustrated by deprivation, And Do Hereby Provide by these Articles for the indivisible Unity and Creation under God of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas…”

Would to God were more of our people sufficiently dedicated to nation-building that they would take these words to heart.

But even as we hope, we find ourselves becalmed in a mire of despond.

And as we interrogate the matter at hand, we are slowly but surely coming to the conclusion that some of the distress and [indeed] some of the drift we note now seem rooted in certain demographic trends now surfacing with a vengeance.

Evidently, one of the more interesting facts of life in today’s supposedly ‘modern’ Bahamas turns on the extent to which so very many strangers have made this urban-centered country their home.

Here we refer to that motley mix of Haitians, Jamaicans, Englishmen, Germans, and Americans and [of course] that crowd of Nigerians who work and live in The Bahamas.

These people are making a difference that promises to transform how we regard ourselves and how people around us see themselves as they become safely and deeply-rooted in this new land.

And so today we would suggest that there is probably only a clever few among this nation’s elite who would consider truly genuine some of the troubles very many so-called grass-roots Bahamians have with that motley crew of strangers who settle and work [sometimes illegally] in this country.

While some of these troubles are deeply rooted in the kind of mindless fear many people routinely have of strangers; the fact remains that most of the conflict between these people is grounded in an economy and social order that now seems to discriminate against Bahamians and [on occasion] in favor of these strangers.

This matter is compounded in another very interesting way.

This time around the matter at hand concerns the extent to which very many of those people who work and make their living here are – on occasion – contemptuous of the ways, values, mores and laws under-girding Bahamian civilization.

Indeed, they give every impression that they are only here because they can make an easy dollar, laugh at their unemployed Bahamian counterpart and otherwise enrich themselves and their families ‘back-home’.

Simply put, some Bahamians now understand that they are being taken for a ride; thus intermittent conflicts between Bahamians and any number of these strangers.

On occasion, there is also evidence of a kind of love-hate dynamic between some of these people as in the case of how some grass-roots Bahamians relate to their Haitian and Jamaican peers.

Of note is the fact that some Bahamians are now the direct result of this fervent re-mix that is now transforming Bahamian pedigree.

As a consequence some of our youth have taken to a hot embrace of Jamaican-born Rastafarianism.

In addition, many of them have also taken to ganja as if it was some royal road to bliss, wisdom and understanding; thus some of the troubles our youth routinely have with the authorities.

In conclusion then, this Bahamian reception of Rastafarianism also brings with it a profound anti-establishment ethic; thus leading to a sad, sad conclusion – forty years later very many of our youth are lost in a haze of Jamaican-grown ganja.

September 24, 2012   Jones Bahamas  

Caribbean Blog International

...what were the salient issues facing those charged with shaping our constitution as we moved to independence ...and how were those issues reconciled?

The independence series, part 1

Consider This...

By Philip C. Galanis

Tomorrow we celebrate the 39th anniversary of Bahamian independence. The Commonwealth of The Bahamas was established by an act of the British Parliament which was passed on June 20, 1973 and took effect in the early hours of July 10, 1973, when thousands on Clifford Park witnessed for the first time the raising of the Bahamian flag after the Union Jack was lowered for the last time on this colony, ending 325 years of British rule.

This week, we begin a series of articles on The Bahamas constitution and for part one would like to Consider This... what were the salient issues facing those charged with shaping our constitution as we moved to independence, and how were those issues reconciled?

A natural progression

Bahamian independence in 1973 was a natural progression following a decade of rapid transformation, not just in The Bahamas but also in the Caribbean. In The Bahamas, the constitution twice prominently featured in the body politic, first in 1964 and then again in 1969.

The Bahamas received its first written constitution on January 7, 1964, which granted full control over its internal affairs to The Bahamas government, with the governor retaining responsibility for external defense and internal security. Cabinet government was introduced, and the upper house of the legislature, previously the Legislative Council, became the Senate. The Senate’s membership increased from 11 to 15, while the House of Assembly retained its designation and the number of elected representatives numbered 33. In 1969, the British government turned over the internal and external affairs to the Government of The Bahamas and replaced the office of premier with that of prime minister.

During this period, Caribbean countries were also obtaining independence from Great Britain. It started with Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in August 1962. Guyana and Barbados followed in May and November 1966, respectively. The Bahamas was next in 1973 and, by the end of that decade, Grenada, Dominica and St. Lucia had also gained their independence from Great Britain.

We can appreciate that the fervor for national independence for Caribbean (and African) countries was inextricably tethered to nationalistic and socio-political realities of the era, aided by Great Britain’s willingness to release its grip on the empire, upon which the sun was said never to set. For The Bahamas, the movement to independence was a natural progression, propelled by the “trade winds” of the time.

The independence conference in London

The general election of September 1972 was contested with the understanding that a victory for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would begin the process of national independence for The Bahamas. It won and Loftus Roker was appointed to liaise with the official opposition Free National Movement (FNM) regarding matters relative to the Independence Conference before going to London.

Therefore, beginning in early December 1972, the PLP, headed by Sir Lynden Pindling, and the FNM, headed by Sir Kendal Isaacs, led a delegation to London to discuss an independence constitution with the British government.

Because The Bahamas already had the 1964 and 1969 constitutions, there was no need to start afresh so 90 percent of the issues regarding independence were agreed upon by both political parties before leaving for London.

The mood of the Bahamian delegation was upbeat and the talks were conducted in a very congenial atmosphere. Several of the delegates to the Constitutional Conference have noted that the drafting of the constitution was a moment in time where the PLP and FNM worked harmoniously, notwithstanding several philosophical points of departure.

One of the early issues discussed at the Constitutional Conference was Bahamian citizenship. The British attempted to persuade the delegation to accept the precedent that had been established by other colonies; that is, for British citizens and “belongers” living in the colonies to register at Government House, so that, at independence, they would automatically become Bahamian citizens. The Bahamian delegation unanimously objected to this, arguing instead that citizenship should not be so open-ended, and that there should be a process by which citizenship would be determined by the government. The Bahamian delegation was adamant and united, and the British relented and accepted the Bahamian position.

Another area of disagreement surrounded gender equality. The PLP proffered that full equality for women should not be enshrined in the constitution. The FNM argued the opposite view. Ultimately, the British government agreed with the PLP’s position.

There was a discussion on the issue of rustication and the freedom of movement and the right of Bahamians to leave The Bahamas. Some in the PLP expressed the concern that Bahamians might depopulate the Family Islands and were also concerned that, in the absence of a rustication provisions, the country could suffer a brain drain. This fuelled the debate about giving Bahamians the right to leave not just their native islands but the country. The British agreed with the opposition on this issue, and consequently there were no prohibitions on Bahamians’ ability to move freely within or outside The Bahamas.

With the issues fully aired and agreed, Sir Kendal Isaacs and the FNM delegates returned to The Bahamas. Some of the PLP delegates, including Sir Lynden, remained in London to finalize the terms upon which the new Bahamian constitution would be presented to the British Parliament. The delegation understood that the British Parliament would introduce and pass that all-important Bill for an Act to grant Independence to The Bahamas.

The surviving signatories of the Bahamian constitution are: Sir Arthur Foulkes, Arthur D. Hanna, Sir Orville Turnquest, Paul L. Adderley, A. Loftus Roker, George A. Smith and Rev. Philip M. Bethel. Deceased signatories included Sir Lynden Pindling, Sir Milo Butler, Sir Clement Maynard, Rev. Carlton E. Francis, Sir Kendal Isaacs, Cadwell C. Armbrister, Henry J. Bowen and Norman S. Solomon. Although there were other Bahamians present at the conference who were not part of the official delegation, these 15 signatories to the Bahamian constitution should rightly be recognized as our nation’s Founding Fathers.

Post-conference activities

After returning to The Bahamas, the government developed the country’s flag, the coat of arms and the national anthem. It is worth noting that the official opposition was not consulted on any of these matters.

After the Constitutional Conference, the government engaged in the most impressive public relations exercise ever conducted in Bahamian history. There was a massive national campaign to inform civil society and the Bahamian people about what independence meant to the country. The post-conference activities were spearheaded by George Smith, who was the parliamentary secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister and headed the Independence Secretariat.

In the early hours of July 10, 1973, the Commonwealth of The Bahamas was born.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the men who assembled in London to frame the constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas 40 years ago performed as impressively as the American Founding Fathers who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to craft that country’s constitution. The Bahamian delegates to the London Constitutional Conference are to be applauded for their superlative efforts in drafting a social contract which has served us these past 39 years.

In the weeks ahead, we will examine key articles of the constitution that have guided our ship of state. We will also consider some of the issues that should be addressed in amending our constitution, hopefully before we celebrate the 40th anniversary of a nation that was born on July 10, 1973.

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Jul 09, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...the theme of this year’s Independence Celebrations is - “The Bahamas: United in Love and Service” ...with emphasis to be placed on the struggles and achievements of the Bahamian woman on the 50th anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement

Celebrating independence and the Bahamian woman

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

This year The Bahamas will mark its 39th anniversary of independence.  There is no doubt that we as a people have made notable progress socially, economically, politically and culturally since July 10, 1973.

The annual Independence Celebrations Committee recently announced the theme of this year’s celebration as “The Bahamas: United in Love and Service” with emphasis to be placed on the struggles and achievements of the Bahamian woman on the 50th anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement.

The accomplishments of the Bahamian woman over the years are undeniable and significant to say the least.  Bahamian women have made and continue to make their mark in every sphere of society with recorded success in education, politics, religion, the corporate world, law enforcement, media and civic society.  However, the Bahamian woman remains a recipient of discrimination and inequality — some of which are enshrined in the supreme law of our land.

The women’s suffrage movement

Women’s suffrage refers simply to the right of women to vote and run for office.  It was a movement that embodied the struggle by women to gain the same rights as their male counterparts, particularly in politics.  It is fair to say that with a few exceptions, women around the world today have the same voting rights as men.  This no doubt constitutes considerable progress from the colonial days when voting was limited to adult males who owned property.  The flawed rationale at that time seemed to be that property owners had the strongest interest in good government and therefore were best qualified to make decisions.

A brief review of history will show that changing social conditions and the idea of equality in the early nineteenth century led to the beginning of the suffrage movement.  This period was characterized by more educated women and increased participation of women in reform movements and politics.  It was therefore only a matter of time before individuals (referred to as suffragists) began to question why women were not allowed to vote and led the drive to advance the cause for a woman’s right to vote.

The Bahamian struggle

The first petition for women’s suffrage in The Bahamas was presented in 1952 by the Great Improved, Benevolent, and Protective Order of Elks of the World under the leadership Mary Ingraham, who also served as the leader of the Bahamian women’s suffrage movement.  The Elks was an organization that possessed a membership of thousands of women throughout The Bahamas at that time and enjoyed considerable support for its cause.  The records show that during this period, even though women represented more than one half of the total Bahamian population, they were disenfranchised.

After multiple failed petitions in 1958 and 1959, victory finally came on January 10, 1960.  The governor at the time assented to an act to enable women to register and vote on July 31, 1961.  However, the act never came into force until 1962 and during the general election held in November, 1962, women voted for the first time in Bahamian history.

Discrimination against the Bahamian woman

Arguably women’s suffrage and consequently universal suffrage acted as springboards among other events to the attainment of majority rule in 1967 and independence from Great Britain in 1973.  The Bahamas Independence Order was made on June 20, 1973, laid before Parliament on June 26, 1973 and came into force on July 10, 1973.  While the document is hailed as being one of the best written constitutions, there are a few articles within the constitution that clearly discriminate against Bahamian women.

On September 18, 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which is sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Rights for women.  The convention, which came into force in 1981, describes the discrimination against women as, “Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”.

The Bahamas ratified this convention on October 6, 1993, joining 186 other countries that have done so.  In ratifying the CEDAW, The Bahamas made an expressed undertaking to end discrimination against women in all forms.  However, The Bahamas has maintained reservations to three of the 30 articles of the CEDAW, and specifically Article 2(a) which embodies the principle of equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation and Article 9(2) which states that women shall be granted equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children.

Addressing the discrepancies

The referendum held by the Free National Movement government on February 27, 2002 sought among other things to rectify the discrepancies regarding gender discrimination within the constitution.  However, more than two-thirds, or 66 percent, of some 87,961 persons voted against the proposed constitutional amendments.

On December 23, 2002, the less than one-year-old Progressive Liberal Party government led by Perry G. Christie appointed a constitutional review commission headed by Paul Adderley to propose recommendations for the amendment of the constitution.

In its preliminary report and provisional recommendations, the commission accepted the proposal to eliminate discrimination against women regarding the passage of citizenship to their children. The committee, however, expressed reservations regarding the granting of citizenship instantaneously upon marriage to non-Bahamian nationals who married Bahamians and recommended a period of five years before such grant regardless of gender.

The Christie administration from 2002 to 2007 further committed to holding a referendum on the aforesaid matters; however, 20 years later, the findings and recommendations of the committee have not been discussed or brought to a referendum.  Hence, the status quo which perpetuates discrimination against the Bahamian woman remains to date.

Celebrating the Bahamian woman

The current administration has not articulated its plans in relation to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in The Bahamas.  Addressing this half a century status quo will pave the way for the withdrawal of reservations to Articles 2(a) and 9(2) of CEDAW.

True celebration and appreciation of the Bahamian woman is ensuring gender equality in The Bahamas and removing any elements that make her feel like a second-class citizen and/or inferior to her male counterpart.

The women’s suffrage movement in The Bahamas formed a part of the progressive era.  Our ancestors saw the need to be progressive minded to their benefit, but more importantly for the benefit of generations to come.

While we note the progress made in our country regarding women, there is much ground to be covered.  Meanwhile the African proverb states that “if we stand tall it is because we stand on the shoulders of many ancestors”.  Today we praise the efforts of those who have gone before us; women who fought for what they believed in.

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

Jul 05, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Bahamian electorate ought to be mindful of the following words of President Thomas Jefferson: ...“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt ...We must make our election between economy and liberty ...or profusion and servitude”

Economic and fiscal prudence: Ingraham vs. Christie

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

There is ongoing debate on the leadership attributes of the prime minister and leader of the Free National Movement (FNM), Hubert A. Ingraham, and the leader of the official opposition and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), Perry G. Christie.  Leadership was the dominant theme of the FNM’s 2007 campaign and it is not surprising that the FNM has adopted the same modus operandi for its 2012 campaign.

The general position of the 21st century Bahamian electorate is one that rejects a leadership campaign in favor of a campaign that promotes plans to create jobs, reduce crime, address the immigration debacle and place the country on the path to economic prosperity.

Against this backdrop, it is imperative to state that a leader will be judged by and for successive generations based on his/her ability to, among other things, manage the economy in a manner that balances economic prudence, socio-economic expectations and infrastructural development.  A review of the budget communications for fiscal years 2002-2012 and comparative analysis of the stewardship of our economy by the Christie and Ingraham administrations is important as we go into the 2012 general election.

Christie administration (2002–2007)

Upon assuming office in May 2002 following a landslide victory at the polls, the Christie administration was faced with multiple challenges.  In the aftermath of two consecutive Ingraham-led terms from 1992-2002, The Bahamas was in recovery mode following a blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force and the backlash of the 9/11 terrorists attacks in the United States which had weakened our main industries of tourism and financial services.

These realities coupled with a burgeoning national debt in excess of $2.1 billion, a debt-to-GDP ratio of 37 percent and a growing deficit of 3.7 percent, would ultimately limit the Christie administration’s ability to implement many of its proposed policies and programs, least among them National Health Insurance.  The administration would proceed to execute austere measures and engineer an aggressive economic policy to improve the economy of the country and maintain deficit levels.

At the onset, the Christie administration recalled a US$125 million loan incurred by the previous Ingraham-led administration that had a four-year term and imposed heavy servicing costs.  As a result, a US$200 million bond attracting a lower interest rate and extending the life of the loan was issued.

Over its five-year period in office, the administration borrowed approximately $640 million to meet is annual budget requirements and aid in its revenue shortfall.  The administration invested in social programs, such as urban renewal, carried out what is arguably the most ambitious housing program in Bahamian history with the building of more than 1,400 homes and allocated funds to the consistent repatriation of illegal immigrants.  Further, the administration chose not to increase taxes, thereby saving Bahamians additional hardship in a depressed economy and implemented austere measures in budget allocations to ministries.

This policy decision as expected, negatively impacted government revenue and curbed expenditure.  However, the administration turned the economy around by securing multiple anchor projects for improvements in infrastructure and job opportunities resulting in an increase in foreign direct investments (FDI) of approximately $240 million in 2002 to an excess of $880 million in 2007.

This enabled The Bahamas under the Christie administration to increase external reserves to a record in excess of $690 million from $370 million in 2002.  Unemployment figures fell from 9.1 percent in 2002 to 7.9 percent in 2007, accounting for approximately 20,000 jobs created.

Ultimately, the Christie administration was able to achieve social, economic and infrastructural development in challenging times that called for austerity.

Ingraham administration (2007–2012)

The Ingraham administration was greeted with multiple FDIs, a national debt of approximately $2.4 billion, a reduced deficit and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 35 percent when it took office in 2007.  In its Manifesto 2007 promise, the administration had committed to deficit reduction and hoped to achieve this feat and reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to a low of 30 percent by 2012.

Faced with favorable economic conditions and a projected growth rate of 4.5 percent, the Ingraham administration’s first and second budgets were generous.  Allocations to most ministries were increased significantly over and above allocations in previous fiscal years.  However, The Bahamas’ tourism and financial services industries would become negatively impacted by the global economic downturn.

Over the ensuing fiscal years, the Ingraham administration witnessed a decline in revenues and consequently relied upon the headroom it met when entering office to significantly increase its borrowing and make up for revenue shortfalls.  In addition, the administration carried out perhaps the most aggressive and controversial fiscal policy in Bahamian history.  Tax increases by the administration adversely impacted lower and middle income earners and Bahamian businesses.  Private schools, charitable and College of The Bahamas subsidies were reduced in an already depressed economy.

Confronted with reduced revenue and only remnants of FDIs negotiated by the Christie administration, the administration seemed to pay the price for its “Stop, Review and Cancel” policy for FDI projects left on the table by the Christie administration, which Standard & Poor’s noted affected investor confidence in The Bahamas.  The administration would later seek to address its revenue shortfall with the controversial sale of the state-owned telecommunications company, Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to British firm Cable & Wireless and the reduction of the prime and discount rates lowered the administration’s debt servicing cost.

The challenges faced by the Ingraham administration were great and as such required prudent fiscal and economic planning.  Caught off-guard by the global recession and with no real or robust economic policy, the Bahamian economy has suffered a great deal.  Unemployment levels have risen to more than 15 percent, foreclosures are at record levels and the government had oversight of more than $100 million in cost overruns for the road improvement project.  The national debt has doubled in excess of $4 billion, deficit levels exceed eight percent and the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 60 percent (more than the recommended rate of less than 40 percent).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, a review of both administrations’ performance in managing the economy suggests that the Ingraham administration lacked a plan to improve economic conditions in the country as evidenced by its reactionary fiscal policy.  The Christie administration, on the other hand, despite being faced with multiple challenges throughout its term charted a course that set The Bahamas on the road to economic recovery.

It is difficult to see how another Ingraham administration would differ from the current one being faced with the same challenge and appearing to wait on a slowly recovering United States economy.  It is fair to state that a similar strategy will be deployed.  The Christie-led PLP has indicated that it will adopt similar policies (as deployed between 2002 and 2007) to restore economic prosperity to The Bahamas if elected.

The Bahamian people ought to be mindful of the following words of President Thomas Jefferson: “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude”.

The facts do not lie and we must choose economy and liberty over profusion and servitude.  The choice is ours to make.

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

Apr 19, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham: During the past 38 years of National independence, we have evolved from a small colony on the periphery of the British Empire into a vibrant democracy and international business centre; proud of our social and political stability and determined to broaden economic opportunities for every citizen

Our evolution into a vibrant democracy

tribune242



PRIME Minister Hubert Ingraham yesterday wished all Bahamians a happy and safe independence weekend.

In a statement issued yesterday, Mr Ingraham said: "During the past 38 years we have evolved from a small colony on the periphery of the British Empire into a vibrant democracy and international business centre, proud of our social and political stability and determined to broaden economic opportunities for every citizen.

"Our success to date is manifested in the fact that we enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes among countries in the Americas."

Nevertheless, the prime minister added, in recent years the Bahamas, like much of the rest of the world, has endured economic hardships as a result of the global economic recession.

He said: "In the face of such adversity we responded in ways reflective of the theme of this year's anniversary celebrations (38 years - United in Love and Service).

"We preserved public sector jobs, increased social assistance programmes, introduced an unemployment benefit, implemented a short term jobs programme, implemented a jobs training programme and accelerated planned infrastructure projects so as to improve service to the Bahamian people while protecting private sector jobs and serving as a catalyst for more job creation."

Mr Ingraham said these initiatives are now being expanded to include new job readiness training, a new jobs creation programme and special targeted initiatives to support small and medium size businesses.

He said these will contribute to the country's planned return to economic prosperity as the world economy and that of the Bahamas continues to recover.

The prime minister added: "Sadly, our celebration of this 38th anniversary of nationhood is marred by a continued high incidence of crime.

"While the government has mounted a multifaceted response to the problem it is increasingly important that all Bahamians unite in sending a clear message to the small minority of persons who break our social contract of good neighbourliness and who choose to live outside of the law, that we will neither tolerate nor excuse their criminal behaviour.
Reflect
"In this regard, we should all recall and reflect upon the important role that the extended family and the neighbourhood have played in our development as a people who are open and welcoming, who share easily and who believe that service is a virtue.

"As is my custom, I wish to once again use this year's Independence Day Message to thank all those who serve our people throughout the year, those in the private sector, in our churches and civic organisations, and throughout the public sector. I wish also to acknowledge and thank all those who work in our diplomatic, tourism and maritime services internationally.

"Many of them will celebrate independence at their overseas post where they pursue our country's interests internationally. I acknowledge their sacrifice and thank them for their continued service to our country.

"We will face many challenges in the year ahead: achieving economic recovery and expansion, protecting our environment from degradation in the face of climate change and sea level rise, safeguarding the supply and cost of energy and of food and winning our war on crime.

"We are a hardy people, self-reliant and bolstered by a long tradition of resourcefulness and self-reliance. So as we celebrate this 38th anniversary of our independence we recall those qualities.

"Fellow Bahamians, on this special national anniversary I extend my very best for a happy and safe Independence Day and pray God's blessings upon our nation and upon each and every one of us."

July 09, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas Independence: What was really intended with Bahamian Independence?

What was really intended with Independence?
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:



THE year before independence was successfully negotiated for the Bahamas, the government published a road map for independence in the form of a White Paper.

Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling presented the White Paper to the House of Assembly on October 18, 1972. It indicated what would stay the same after independence, what would change, and the vision for the future of the Bahamas.

What was the meaning of independence from the perspective of the founding fathers? By his own admission, Sir Lynden did not envisage that the Independence Constitution would be dramatically different from the 1969 Constitution, either in form or content.

So what really was the promise of independence? Perhaps the answer lies in an examination of the issues and implications of Independence as they were conceived in 1972.

“Independence is necessary and desirable now for reasons which affect both national development and international relations. Above all, independence will enable the Bahamian people to find their true identity and to establish that freedom towards which all men aspire and to which all are entitled.”


What was set to stay the same following Independence

Monarchy to be retained. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will be invited to be Head of State, Queen of our Independent Bahamas.

Conditions for the Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament will stand.

Bi-cameral form of legislature to be retained. In the main, qualifications for appointment or election to remain unchanged.

Composition of the Executive to be retained.

The Supreme Court and The Court of Appeal for the Bahamas to continue as is.

Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to continue.

Royal Bahamas Police Force to retain responsibility for enforcing the Constitution, law enforcement, and the protection of person and property.

The three Service Commissions – Public Service, Police Service and Judicial and Legal Service – to continue.

Membership on Commonwealth Caribbean Secretariat and Caribbean Development Bank to continue.

Automatic succession of treaties, conventions and agreements (dealing with postal activity, telecommunications, road traffic, broadcasting, health service, customs, commerce, visa requirements, racial discrimination, navigation, etc.) on the condition that within a reasonable time and after critical examination of every detail of every treaty or agreement concerned, the government would confirm its succession to some treaties an discontinue others.

Government to retain ownership of Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation, the Bahamas Electricity Corporation and ZNS.

Oil exploration by major oil companies.

Industrial Encouragement Act.

Maintain tax-haven status.

Continue to encourage hotel development and industrial diversification.


What was set to change following Independence

Governor-General to represent the Queen and exercise her executive authority, acting on the advice of the Cabinet or a minister empowered by the Cabinet.

One general election every five years or less except in times of national emergency.

Constituencies Commission to replace Boundaries Commission.

New constitutional clause to make provision for amending the Constitution only through democratic process.

The United Kingdom government will cease to have any responsibility foreign relations, defense and internal security, except by any treaty arrangement that might be made with the Bahamas government to become effective upon or after Independence.

Re-negotiate foreign military base and related agreements (specifically, those between the governments of the UK and the USA, covering installations on several Bahamian islands of missile tracking stations, United States Navy and Coast Guard stations and the Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center on Andros).

Wider distribution of police throughout the Family Islands and revitalization of Police Volunteer Reserve Strengthen Marine Division.

Eliminate Common Entrance examinations and institute a single ladder system. Introduce a system of senior high schools.

Open central schools up to junior secondary level in the Family Islands.

National Insurance Act to make provisions for cash benefits to specified beneficiary groups.

Central Bank to evolve from Monetary Authority.

Reorganize and reconstitute Post Office Savings Bank as National Savings Bank.

Institute a Development Bank of the Bahamas.

Institute a Bahamas Development Corporation to be responsible for the acquisition, improvement and disposal of land and for the redevelopment of areas cited as physical, economic or social liabilities.

Crown land or government land will no longer be available to non-Bahamians except on the basis of equity participation at the land’s full economic value.

Make public land available to Bahamians to enable them to make an effective start in business.

New sub-division legislation and real estate agents legislation will be introduced to protect the Bahamians and buyers of Bahamian land.

Government to seek equity participation in utility corporations operating in Family Islands.

Establish a national flag carrier that will be substantially owned and controlled by Bahamians.

Encourage more international carriers to install regular services from Europe to the Bahamas.

Stop indiscriminate proliferation of local charter, freight or passenger carriers.

Air Transport Licensing Authority to review all licenses and permits held by airlines not operating in services in the Bahamas. Licenses or permits may be suspended or terminated for airlines inactive for a year.

In the past, certain private institutions have taken the viewpoint that they can dictate their own terms; even that they are doing us a favour simply by setting up an interest within our shores. Such attitudes amount to gross irresponsibility and cannot be justified.


What was envisioned for the future in an independent Bahamas

Improve the facilities for administration of justice in the scattered Family Islands, whereby the courts are taken to the people rather bringing the people to the courts.

Arrangements to be made to ensure safe custody and proper treatment of dangerous criminals.

Seek membership of the ILO, FAO, WHO, UNESCO, IBRD, IMF, GATT (the former name of the World Bank), WTO, Commonwealth Secretariat and other Commonwealth Organizations.

Strive for closer relationship with the Commonwealth Caribbean countries.

Aim of the government to remain at peace with all nations and in co-operation with them, to promote the welfare of mankind all over the world.

It is not practical to suggest that an independent Bahamas would play or attempt to play a major role in the political affairs of the world … (but) our small nation can and will hold a respected place among the nations of the world

Priority matters relating to the law of the sea: The extent of territorial waters; the extent of national jurisdiction over the seabed; and the defense implications of the former matters. Determination of designated national waters, high seas areas, continental shelf. The Bahamas government will strive to have archipelagic principle applied in determining its territorial sea.

Improve efficiency of Royal Bahamas Police Force.

Provide equal opportunity for all Bahamians in a system of education designed to promote progress and unity.

The proposed College of the Bahamas.

A national system of education that will bring about improvements in standards of learning, and provide a more equitable assessment of students’ abilities, achievements and potential.

Primary teacher training facilities to be extended, secondary teacher training facilities to be developed.

The need for expatriate teachers will remain for some years ahead, but the ultimate objective is that of self-sufficiency with qualified Bahamian teachers.

Provision of vocational training in such subjects as hotel management, transport management, banking, business administration, and others.

Improve and extend hospital and medical facilities along the most modern and best tested lines.

Implementation of ILO 1970 recommendations

Introduction of national health insurance scheme.

Community Development Centers will be progressively and systematically established in densely populated areas to cater for pre-natal and post-natal needs, child day-care needs and the recreational needs of young people.


Economic independence:

Properly developed fisheries industry will generate a turnover of some B$10 million per annum.

Co-operative societies to provide credit and marketing facilities to fishermen and farmers.

For many years past, agricultural developments in the Bahamas have been minimal. The government is determined that this shall change. Of the three and a half million acres of land in the Bahamas, nearly half a million acres are now believed to have a high agricultural potential. The national food bill in 1970 was approximately $57 million of which $47.5 million was imported. At least a further B$8 million worth of food, at present imported, can and must be produced internally.

The expert opinion of the UK Land Resources Division states there is no reason why we cannot become self-supporting in poultry, eggs, milk, mutton and pork, citrus and garden products.

Improve means of marketing foodstuffs. New marketing system to account for quality control, grades and standards, price stabilization, storage and handling facilities and a reliable two-way flow of marketing information.

Improve circumstances of small farmers.

Implement programme to encourage consumers to buy Bahamian.

Negotiate loans and financial assistance for new transport facilities, the development and/or redevelopment of urban areas, new and improved amenities for the Family Islands, housing projects, schools, hospitals, roads and sanitation.

Provide monetary support to ensure the preservation of both man-made and natural attractions in the tourism sector and implement major extension to tourist facilities throughout the islands.

Vigorously pursue industrial diversification.

Provide land for small hotels to be owned and operated by local families, especially in the Family islands.

Provide land for enterprising Bahamians seriously interested in farming, commercial and industrial enterprises.

Aragonite mining to represent a source of income for many years ahead. The estimated world demand is 2,000 million tons. The Bahamas probably possesses reserves of this mineral of the order of 50,000 million tons.

Emergence of the Bahamas as a maritime nation.

Encourage food processing and canning, garment manufacture, household furnishings production, light engineering and metal and plastics fabrication.

Public/private partnership in oil industry development to put the country in the forefront of leading international centres for the deepwater terminalling and transshipment of oil, for oil refining and for the manufacture of petrochemicals.

Nationalisation shall not be an instrument of the government’s economic policy.

Investors should make a proper contribution to the economic and social development of the Bahamas.

Commercial organisations should indicate a sincere intent to train Bahamians. The use of foreign personnel should be limited.

Foreign investors should seek partnership with Bahamians.

July 11, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

The Constitutional Commission: The Bahamas should be a Democratic Parliamentary Republic with the Head of State being The President

The Constitutional Commission Recommends that The English Monarch no Longer Be Head of State of The Bahamas and The Office of The Governor General Be Abolished

Abolish Governor General

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

23 March 2006

Saying that the time has come for a Bahamian head of state to be elected by both Houses of Parliament, the Constitutional Commission is recommending that the English monarch no longer be head of state of The Bahamas and the office of the governor general be abolished.

The Commission also says in its preliminary report presented to Prime Minister Perry Christie at his Cable Beach office on Wednesday that The Bahamas should be a democratic parliamentary republic with the head of state being the president.

"Executive powers shall continue to be exercised by the cabinet with the head of government being the prime minister," the report recommends.

It also says the head of state should be a citizen of The Bahamas.

The Commission found it "curious" that there is no requirement for the holder of the office of governor general to be a citizen of The Bahamas.

"Because of the method of appointment of the governor general, it hardly seems logical that the person appointed to this office would be a non-Bahamian," the report says.  "To remove all doubt it should be declared that the governor general or head of state be a Bahamian citizen."

The report says it is apparent that the position of head of state of The Bahamas is not seen in reality to be the Queen of Great Britain, who constitutionally is also the Queen of The Bahamas.

It adds, "People appear not to be troubled by the concept and are apparently satisfied to regard the governor general, although wrongly, to be the head of state of The Bahamas.  The reaction to the proposition that the queen is constitutionally queen of The Bahamas was usually met with silence."

The Commission notes on page 12 of its preliminary report that the abolition of the English monarch as head of state of the Bahamas is part of the evolutionary process toward a truly peoples government, not one of the Queen’s dominions, but part of the Commonwealth.

The report says, "The Commission would wish the Bahamian people to focus on whether the position of a foreign monarch and one that is shared with many other countries, is reconcilable with the founding provisions which state The Bahamas shall be a ‘sovereign’ democratic state.

"We cannot on the one hand assert ourselves as a sovereign country and a free and independent actor in international affairs while relying on the legal fiction of ‘Her Majesty in Parliament’ and ‘Her Majesty’s Government’ in the ‘speech from the throne’ to give legitimacy to our government."

Additionally, the report says it is conceded that in an increasingly interdependent world the concept of sovereignty as it denotes a self-sufficient national territory is waning; sovereignty must denote an independent legal entity, where some supreme body has virtually unlimited capacity to make laws.

It notes that although the existence and validity and rules in the country’s legal system are determined by reference to a written constitution, those laws still require the participation of the ‘Queen in Parliament’ to be properly enacted.

"This is inconsistent with being a completely independent legal entity," the report says.

The report reveals that during its consultations on every inhabited Bahamian island, except three cays in the Exumas, there were mixed feelings about the retention of the Queen of England as Queen of The Bahamas and head of state of The Bahamas.

It notes that there was a significant number of persons who expressed no opinion on the institution of monarchy; there were others who were of the opinion that the status quo should remain, while others were of the view that this link to the British Monarchy was inconsistent with Bahamian independence and sovereignty and should be severed while preserving membership with the Commonwealth of which queen is symbolic head.

The Commission recommends that the provision of the Constitution that permits the chief justice and the president of the senate to serve as acting head of state should be removed to avoid a conflict of interest.

Deputies should be appointed from among eminent citizens to fill any vacancies of that office, the report says.

The Constitution Commission Submits Its Report to Prime Minister Perry Christie

It is The View of the Constitution Commission that there Should Be Greater Opportunity for The Involvement of Civil Society before The Exercise of Executive Power

There is Widespread Support Among The Bahamian People to Limit the Powers of The Prime Minister

Push To Limit PM’s Powers

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

23 March 2006

More than three years after it was appointed to review the Bahamas Constitution and make recommendations for change, the Constitution Commission yesterday presented its report to Prime Minister Perry Christie, which states that there is widespread support among the Bahamian people to limit the powers of the nation’s leader.

"By and large people felt the enormous powers of the prime minister, whether real or perceived, had to be limited without affecting the prime minister’s authority," the highly-anticipated report states.

"It was their view that there should be greater opportunity for the involvement of civil society before the exercise of executive power."

Former Attorney General Paul Adderley, who chairs the Commission with Queen’s Counsel Harvey Tynes, said the initial report will be widely circulated and the Commission will then draft final recommendations, which will be presented to the prime minister.

"We’re only half way through the process now and [we hope] that by the end of the day we have a general agreement in The Bahamas," said Mr. Adderley, who noted that the Commission received strong response from Family Islanders in particular during its consultations.

Prime Minister Christie, meanwhile, foreshadowed that there will have to be a referendum so that Bahamians could decide what changes they want to see to their constitution.

"At some stage we are going to go to the people on a referendum," Mr. Christie said.  "The lesson of this country is that when we do that we must have exhausted every opportunity we have now for consultation; that must never be an issue again, whether or not we have consulted sufficiently."

The prime minister was referring to the failed referendum of February 2002, during which time the Bahamian people overwhelmingly rejected the Ingraham Administration’s move to have changed certain provisions of the constitution, including those to do with citizenship.

Mr. Christie, who appointed the Commission on December 23, 2002, mandated it to carry out a comprehensive review and make recommendations that would strengthen fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights of the individual, and critically examine the structure of the executive authority.

In its preliminary report, the Constitutional Commission wrote that there were many criticisms leveled at the devotion to duty provided by some members of parliament, and many persons expressed the view that there should be some system for penalizing or recalling delinquent representatives.

Generally, the report states, there was not any great dissatisfaction with the basic system of parliamentary democracy and the two-chambered parliament.

However, there was reportedly widespread agreement with the need for reform of the Senate to make it a more mature representative body with membership drawn from broader segments of the community.

"Many persons expressed the view that the Senate should be an elected body," the report states, "but without altering its powers; others felt that some senators should have security of tenure."

It also says that the early town meetings of the commission held in New Providence and the Family Islands were dominated by a discussion on the preamble to the constitution and there was unanimous support for retaining the preamble in its current form.

The preamble, which is the section at the beginning of the constitution explaining the reasons for its enactment and its objectives, points to self-discipline, industry, loyalty, unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the rule of law as being vital to guaranteeing the freedom of Bahamians.

Weeks after the appointment of Sir Arthur Hanna as the queen’s representative in The Bahamas, the report reveals that there were mixed feelings about the retention of the Queen of England as Queen of The Bahamas and head of state of The Bahamas.

It notes that there was a significant number of persons who expressed no opinion on the institution of monarchy; there were others who were of the opinion that the status quo should remain, while others were of the view that this link to the British Monarchy was inconsistent with Bahamian independence and sovereignty and should be severed while preserving membership with the Commonwealth of which queen is symbolic head.

The Commission recommends that the English Monarch shall no longer be the head of state of The Bahamas and the office of governor general be abolished.

The report also says that there was a common concern that the government did not have command of the immigration situation, and most people thought to some degree this was linked to the state of the citizenship and immigration laws.

"In particular, there was concern over the status of children born in The Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents," the report adds.

The Commission also reported that a large number of Family Island persons resonated a call for greater autonomy in local government and for the constitution to specify the relationship between the central and local government.

"A realistic study of the governmental needs of the more developed islands and the less developed should be undertaken," the report says.