There seem to be more questions than answers regarding the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party... questions that will certainly be answered on General Election Day

The Democratic National Alliance

By Philip C. Galanis

The mission of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is to ensure that the needs and aspirations of Bahamian people – to be owners with the government in the political, cultural, and economic development of the nation – are met.

DNA mission statement

Since its launch in May, 2011 the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), the newest political party on the Bahamian landscape, has gained considerable traction with the Bahamian public, especially those who are clamoring for something different in our body politic.  The pervasive pronouncement is that Bahamians are tired of the behemoth Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), or at least of the leaders of those two goliath political machines.  So far, the DNA has named 26 candidates to contest next year's general election and promises to field a full slate of candidates, which is unprecedented for such a new political party.  Therefore this week we would like to Consider This... Does the DNA have staying power?  Can it form the next government and what kind of governance could we expect from this fledging political party?

Historically, third parties have not fared well in Bahamian politics.  The last endeavor of an organized third party, the Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR), met the fateful disaster of not having any of its candidates poll sufficient votes to enjoy a refund of their deposits.  Therefore, what makes the upcoming contest any different?  Have Bahamian voters sufficiently matured to embrace a third alternative?

Some political pundits and pollsters have suggested that Branville McCartney, the DNA's self-appointed leader, is the most popular politician in Bahamian politics today and that his magnetic mass appeal stems from his courage in taking on his former political mentor, the Rt. Hon. Hubert Ingraham, much as the latter took on his political mentor, the Rt. Hon. Sir Lynden Pindling in 1992.  The only thing that Bahamians love more than a winner is a brash, brazen leader who is prepared to buck the established order.  Will McCartney and his DNA "green team" have what is required to translate those ingredients into a winning team?  And if the DNA cannot win an outright plurality, will they be spoilers, winning enough seats to form a coalition government?

Why now?

Many Bahamians have repeatedly asserted that while Ingraham and Christie are tried and tested, there is a perception that they are tired, with few new ideas, have exceeded their relevance on the political stage and that now is the time for them to exit.  Furthermore, both of those leaders are now in their sixties, and many developed and developing democracies are trending toward leaders in their forties and fifties, including the recent change in Jamaica.

That the DNA has gained any traction at all seems to support the proposition that Bahamians are now ready for a tectonic shift in the established order.  Their appeal could be as much grounded in their freshness and youth as in a yearning for a generational shift, precipitated by our changing demographics.  The DNA seems to be gaining considerable appeal among young voters who increasingly constitute a very large segment of the voting populace.   Furthermore, the DNA has positioned itself as a party of the middle class, compared to the PLP and the FNM who are seen to represent grassroots and elitist voters, respectively.

The DNA's challenges

The most pronounced challenge which the DNA has to overcome is its inexperience.  With the exception of its leader, none of the DNA candidates have any experience in governance.  Those who say that Lynden Pindling and his team did not have any experience in government when he first became premier in 1967 are missing a very essential point.  While it is true that Pindling and his team were inexperienced in actual governance, they were certainly experienced in parliamentary democracy, with many years experience in Parliament before attaining majority rule.  This is an extremely important difference and one that should not escape or be easily dismissed by the green team.

The DNA's first test will be a demonstrable ability to construct a national election machine to stage a national campaign.  If it can do that, the most essential question which McCartney has to address is whether the Bahamian people are prepared to hand over the government to such an inexperienced group of newcomers.   And if the DNA were to win, it will take a very long time for a DNA government to learn the system of governance along with the workings of the deeply entrenched and all-powerful public service, as well as to obtain a basic understanding of how to run a country.  The DNA's first test as government will be the preparation and defense of a national budget, no mean feat for even a seasoned political organization.   And, no matter how brilliant the ideas and vision of the DNA, in our present precarious circumstances, we must ask if our country can afford the time it will take these political newcomers to learn the ins and outs of how to run the country.

Another important consideration is that most of the DNA's announced candidates are unknown on the national scene.  What does the electorate really know about its candidates and their backgrounds?  What do they stand for and have they been successful in their various professional or occupational endeavors?

In addition, the DNA has not yet clearly articulated its platform.  What differentiates the DNA from the other mainstream parties?  We are still not certain what the party stands for and how it will implement its agenda.  What skills do they have in drafting the legislation that it will have to table in Parliament in order to implement its programs and policies?    Who will comprise the cabinet and what experience will such persons bring to their various portfolios?  And is the DNA prepared to make the many appointments to boards, commissions and the foreign service?  These are the essential decisions that will have to be taken almost immediately if the DNA is transformed from a political party to a government.   These are the issues that members of the electorate will have to consider when casting their ballots on Election Day.

Conclusion

We believe that the next general election will be keenly contested, fiercely fought and extremely exciting.  As we saw in the Elizabeth by-election, many races will be cliffhangers and every single vote will be important.

One thing is certain.  There seem to be more questions than answers regarding the DNA, questions that will certainly be answered on Election Day.

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

Nov 07, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...five years after the May 02, 2007 general election, Bahamians face a new round with a decisive man at the top... It is now up to the electorate to decide whether they are going to entrust their future to a leader of indecision, or one of decision

FNM and PLP prepare for an election

tribune242 editorial


ON MONDAY, Prime Minister Ingraham announced the appointment of the Constituencies (Boundaries) Commission, which is expected to make its recommendations to Parliament by the end of this year with voters' cards ready for issue by early in the New Year.

By October 7, 134,000 voters had already registered in the 41 electoral constituencies for the 2012 election. They are still registering. However, the Boundaries Commission now has sufficient numbers to study the shifts in population in the various constituencies, and make recommendations to government on how the boundaries should be drawn for this election.

The Constitution provides for a minimum of 38 House members. Presently there are 41 (one extra seat added by the PLP in 2007), and so, if the population shifts warrant it, at least three constituencies can be eliminated and merged.

What a difference five years can make with a decisive prime minister at the helm.

At this time five years ago, then Prime Minister Perry Christie was still dithering. He had not yet announced the close of the register, because of the poor turnout of citizens. By November 2006 just over 63,000 voters had registered in New Providence out of a projected 120,000 voters.

According to Mr Christie, he could not close the register because Bahamians were not registering fast enough, which resulted in him not being able to appoint a Boundaries Commission to decide electoral boundaries.

On March 22, 2007 Mr Christie said that there were compelling reasons why the work of the commission had to be delayed, which had nothing to do with inaction by the commission or the government.

"Instead," he said, "the delay, regrettably as it was, was the direct result of the very slow process of Bahamians registering to vote."

By comparison, Mr Ingraham announced this week that by the first week in January 2012 the Parliamentary Registration Department is expected to start the distribution of voters' cards. By the same time five years ago Mr Christie was still begging Bahamians to register so that the Commission could make a decision on the boundaries.

Apparently, Mr Christie refused to recognise that many Bahamians are very much like him -- slow to decide and even slower to act. Although Mr Christie was advised to announce a closure date early in 2006 for the 2007 election -- as Mr Ingraham had done earlier this year for the 2012 election -- he refused to do so. He was told that the only way to get Bahamians to move was to fix a date -- the floodgates would open, and registration offices would be filled. This seemed to take an extra long time for Mr Christie to compute and so three months before the 2007 election the Boundaries Commissioners were still floundering -- still nothing to report. It was only on the morning of March 19, 2007 - two months before the election - that Mr Christie presented the House with the Boundaries report.

It did not take a genius to predict that the 2007 election was going to be one of confusion. Up to that point political candidates were not even certain of their districts. First Bahamians were blamed because they were too slow to register. And naturally at the end of the day, someone else had to be blamed for the inevitable confusion that was to follow when voting did start. Naturally, the poor Parliamentary Commissioner, through no fault of his own, had to be the fall guy for the indecision at the top.

Here it was March 19, 2007 with Mr Christie standing before the House with the Boundaries Commissions report to be presented. One of the Commissioner's signatures was missing -- that of Brent Symonette, the only Opposition member on the committee. Mr Symonette had refused to sign because the PLP members had shunted him aside, treating his opinion with complete contempt. This will not happen this year as Mr Symonette, again appointed to the Commission, is one of the two members representing the government.

At this point in 2007, the Constitution was closing in on Mr Christie. If he didn't do his famous two-step shuffle quickly, on May 22 Parliament would automatically dissolve itself without him.

It was a huffing and a puffing to the finish line, which was eventually announced for May 2. The results were inevitable - the FNM won 23 of the 41 seats with the PLP winning the other 18. And now five years later Bahamians face a new election with a decisive man at the top. It is now up to the electorate to decide whether they are going to entrust their future to a leader of indecision, or one of decision.

It is only a matter of months before Bahamians are called upon to make that decision.

October 12, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Will the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks have an impact on how Bahamians vote in the upcoming general election?

WikiLeaks: An election issue?

thenassauguardian editorial


Within a year, Bahamians will again be voting for a government. The third non-consecutive term of the Free National Movement (FNM) in office is coming to an end. The general election campaign hasn’t officially started yet, but both the FNM and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) have hosted sporadic rallies.

The economy, the crime problem and leadership are likely major issues to be discussed along the way. Reading some of the Bahamian blogs and websites, some seem to also wonder if the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks will have an impact on how Bahamians vote.

They should, as Bahamians should evaluate as much information as possible before making a decision on the party they will vote for. The times are serious. Irrational voting based on old family ties or tradition will not help advance the country from where it is to where we all want it to be.

The cables present a behind the scenes view of diplomacy in this country and also the opinions of our closest and most powerful friend, the United States. More specifically, they provide insight into how our leaders are perceived by the U.S. The analysis is raw and candid, as it was not meant for public consumption.

The Americans have interacted closely with our political leaders and ruling class for years. It is their job to get to know Bahamian power brokers as demonstrated by their interviews and conversations with FNM leader Hubert Ingraham and PLP leader Perry Christie. It is also their job to get to know the want to be power brokers, such as Cassius Stuart who had too much to say to an American official during the Elizabeth by-election.

The Americans have also worked closely with both parties and both prime ministers – Christie and Ingraham – during their terms in office. At times, as will be revealed in upcoming cables, the embassy officials and our leaders worked very closely together on issues of local and international significance.

Thus far, based on the cables published, Ingraham has come across as over-confident, competent and a little arrogant. Christie has come across as less than organized, a nice guy and indecisive. The Americans have perceived character traits in the men that Bahamians have too.

What the cables can offer to voters is the impression of a critic, the U.S., who has a major interest in The Bahamas. For that critic The Bahamas is important, as it is one of three countries bordering the U.S. Its friendship and partnership are very important to America, as Bahamian intransigence would lead to a massive spike in the amount of drugs and illegal migrants flowing into that country.

The cables present serious analysis from a serious partner. They are not gossip. They are meant to help the U.S. State Department set policy towards this country.

With The Bahamas still not clearly out of recession, a recession that began at the end of 2008, and a fourth homicide record in five years a near certainty, the cables will likely not be the main issue at the general election. However, they will make for some good reading over the next few months.

At the end of this process we suggest that our readers take another read of the volumes of material written by the Americans on the issues analyzed between 2003 and 2010.

Then, if there is a particular issue that piques your curiosity, we suggest questions should be asked to canvassing politicians during the campaign.

Jun 07, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Ban foreign money from Bahamian elections

Ban foreign money from elections
thenassauguardian editorial


The Bahamas has been an independent country for 37 years. Majority rule came about in 1967. Since these two landmark events, our leaders have not seen the need to create rules surrounding election financing.

And we the people have not demanded that these rules be created.

Currently a slack system exists. Anyone with a bag of money can give that money to any politician or political party. And that’s that.

There is no public disclosure required. There is no accountability by politicians or political parties.

It has been rumored – and these rumors are likely true – that drug dealers, foreign investors seeking favors and foreign governments have given money to candidates and political parties in The Bahamas in the past.

Campaign finance reform has many components. We shall focus on three areas.

As a start to a process that should have begun a long time ago, The Bahamas should ban foreign money from its elections. It should also require public disclosure of donations over a certain level. And, a constitutionally independent electoral commission should be established to oversee the election process.

In democracies, only citizens can vote. Election contributions are powerful tools of influence. Money in elections is just as powerful as the process of voting, as it pays for advertising, which influences thought and behavior.

If foreigners cannot vote, they should not be allowed to sit on the sideline and influence who is elected in order to satisfy their own set of narrow interests.

According to the Federal Election Commission in the United States, a ban on foreign contributions to elections came about in 1966 in that country.

The second step to reform should be disclosure. In The Bahamas people give money to political parties. Then they get contracts when the party wins government. The bigger the donation, the bigger the contract received.

If a rule exists that makes public all donations over a certain amount, it would be harder for parties to simply share out state resources to friends.

A website should exist with the audited books of political parties, allowing citizens and the media to scrutinize who has given money to whom and what favors were received in return.

To oversee these initial reforms, it would be necessary to create a constitutional electoral commission.

If the rules governing the commission are not enshrined in the constitution, politicians will interfere with the body to ensure it cannot regulate the system.

The body should be led by a judge – someone with high integrity who has demonstrated impartiality.

The commission should be appointed by an extraordinary vote of Parliament – two-thirds or more – and it should be comprised of other similarly impartial people.

Additionally, an automatic funding mechanism should be set up to ensure the commission is adequately funded. Otherwise, the parties would ensure the commission does not have enough money to carry out its mandate.

These few steps are a mere beginning to campaign finance reform in The Bahamas. Being allowed to vote is only a small part of the democratic process. It is necessary to put these reforms in place so governments are accountable to all the people once elected, rather than the few who fund them.

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International