The Decline of The Bahamas

The Steady Decline of The Bahamian Nation - The Bahamas

By Dennis Dames
Nassau, The Bahamas

The public's perception of the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) is at an all time crying low - in my view. Recent bad news about the Force and some of its Officers has added unfavourably to how the Bahamian people see the Police, and their organization.

The Coroners Court has concluded lately that a number of Police Officers have committed manslaughter in the excution of their duties. This has left a totally bad taste in the mouths of many citizens and residents generally - and has widen the distrust between the Police and the general public - which has eroded further the national security of The Bahamas.

To make matters horribly worse, a senior Officer of the Force - who occupied a high position of trust and responsibility - is accused of engaging in serious criminal activities with a high profile, highly and politically connected, potentially rogue and criminal-minded attorney, and street gangsters; some of whom have been murdered on the streets of Nassau in recent times. This has created a public scandal of monumental proportions.

The leadership of the Police Force along with the government of the day - seem to be taking the matter very lightly - in my opinion. Thus, the Bahamian community's view of the Police and the government - is one of complete disgrace. The handling of such a serious situation to date has left one to wonder if the powers that be have decided that they will gamble politically and just pretend that all's well.

Well, all is not well in The Bahamas under the political and immoral leadership of the status quo and its devoted facilitators. The Bahamian public feels as if endemic wholesale corruption, incompetence and criminality in high places throughout the Commonwealth of The Bahamas - is the order of the day which the shamelessly corrupt leadership of the nation holds so dearly close to their demonic hearts and souls.

The fruit of such diabolical corruption in high places will continue to rip apart the Bahamian nation. The wickedly corrupt political and otherwise leaders in The Bahamas do not care about the future welfare of their own friggin children! So, the future of The Bahamas will be more and more of the much sought after devilish corruption in high places - while powerful criminals and blood-thirsty bosses have their way with impunity!

How very sad - as many so called good Bahamian men and women remained silent! It looks like every Bahamian citizen are standing on the sidlines just watching The Bahamas descend in to the pits of hell.

Hubert Minnis is A Persona Non Grata in Bahamian Politics

Analysis: Hubert Minnis Has Fallen on His Own Sword

Hubert Minnis Final Act of Political Folly

By THE GATE KEEPER

Nassau, The Bahamas

Hubert Minnis has fallen on his own sword, a stark and brutal end to a political journey marked by both triumph and turbulence. In a recent leadership vote within the Free National Movement (FNM), Minnis suffered not just a defeat but a resounding rejection, receiving a mere 163 votes against Michael Pintard’s commanding 486.

This outcome raises a fundamental question: why would Minnis, once decisively rejected by the electorate in 2021, willingly submit himself to such public and profound humiliation? The answer may lie in a tragic blend of political hubris and strategic miscalculation.

This debacle is not merely a reflection of a leader out of step with his party; it is an emblem of a political career that has veered into the realm of self-sabotage. Minnis’s attempt to reclaim authority within the FNM was less a battle for leadership and more a misjudged skirmish that ended in his complete and utter capitulation.

His decision to run in the face of such obvious party sentiment was less an act of courage and more a misfire of epic proportions, illustrating a profound disconnect from the political realities of his diminished stature.

By thrusting himself into this leadership contest, Minnis has not only obliterated his political influence but has also inadvertently amplified Pintard’s stature, cementing his role as the party’s new cornerstone. Each vote for Pintard echoed as a resounding repudiation of Minnis, effectively banishing him from the political arena he once dominated.

The implications of this political suicide are far-reaching. Minnis’s fall from grace serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of clinging to power beyond one’s expiry date.

It underscores a bitter truth in politics: that the refusal to recognize one’s waning influence can lead to ruinous consequences, transforming leaders into relics of their former selves.

In the aftermath of this debacle, the FNM finds itself at a crossroads, now rallying behind Pintard’s vision of renewal and distancing itself from the Minnis era—a period that will likely be remembered more for its ignominious end than its achievements. As for Minnis, his legacy will be marred by this final act of political folly, a sad denouement for a figure who once held the nation’s highest office.

This stark transformation within the FNM should serve as a critical warning to the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP): stay alert and take nothing for granted, as political landscapes can shift dramatically and unexpectedly.

As this chapter closes on Minnis’s career, the lesson is clear: political power is as much about knowing when to hold on as it is about knowing when to let go. Unfortunately for Minnis, his grasp extended far beyond his reach, leaving him not just defeated but disgraced.

Source / Comment

The PLP and FNM are Two Peas in a Pod

The Progressive Liberal Party, PLP and the Free National Movement, FNM are Proving to be Two Peas in a Pot

The silent majority in The Bahamas is never impressed by the old same PLP and FNM!

By Dennis Dames

I always find it sadly amusing that the overtly and shamelessly blind, and arrogant supporters of the PLP and FNM on social media would always defend the serious wrongdoings of their respective party and high ranking members by pointing out an egregious error of  the present or past by the other party or a dear member thereof.

Their arguments are always unwittingly based on: We are essentially two peas in a pod.  The silent majority is never impressed by this petty, dirty and corrupt brand of politics that we engage in – in The Bahamas.

It is the primary reason why we have not had a two term government in our beloved nation for more than a generation – in my opinion.  The unimpressive political gangsterism and corruption stinks, and the voters obviously don’t like it!

So keep on defending blatant nonscense and the lack of accountability in government – senseless PLPs and FNMs.  Your respective parties will soon be out of favor in the hearts and souls of the Bahamian people for good!

The Official Opposition, Free National Movement (FNM) party is in political upheaval

Inside troublemakers who support the return of the former FNM party leader, Dr. Minnis are apparently trying feverishly/violently to frustrate the leadership of one Michael Pintard

Dr. Hubert Alexander Minnis is the seemingly bitter former FNM party leader who refuses to "Get Lost!"

Leadership challenges faced by Pintard historically infamous

By Fred Sturrup | GB News Editor | sturrup1504@gmail.com

Recently during a high level meeting arranged by the Official Opposition in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, the Free National Movement, reportedly there was contention.  The situation boiled over into an embarrassing, brutal physical altercation that left a noted party supporter seriously injured.  Eye witnesses informed that he was savagely put upon by a fellow strong FNM proponent, who has differing views regarding Dr. Hubert Alexander Minnis who led the party to defeat last September.

The Hon. Michael Pintard is the sitting leader of the FNM.  He attained such status in a democratic fashion, decisively.  Dr. Minnis is the seemingly bitter former leader, who did not offer himself for the role when Pintard disposed of several others through the “in order” convention voting process.

As I pointed out in an earlier opinion piece it doesn’t appear that Dr. Minnis is going away.  The view here is that he continues to grandstand, is not really respectful of Leader Pintard, and there is, accordingly,  this emotional spillover to his supporters.  Thus the FNM party is in deep crisis.  Pintard’s leadership is being assailed.

This is unfair and unprecedented in Bahamian politics.

This atrocious scenario never came about before because politicians and their followers of the past, though many of them were strong-minded, their characters did not lend themselves to violence against each other. 

The country’s first political party, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) saw the leadership pass from Henry Milton Taylor to Lynden Oscar Pindling.  Taylor and a few others were bitter about the new kids on the block taking over, but there was not much of a thought of challenging the new order.

After Pindling’s 30-plus years of leadership, Perry Gladstone Christie emerged as leader.  There was the expected resentment and disappointment felt by those who preferred Dr. Bernard Nottage, but the party moved on handsomely.  Christie delayed his time in PLP leadership, by failing to live up to his own reported time table to demit office. However, present PLP Leader and Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis bided his time, and look where he is today!

The second political party in the country which produced the first government, the United Bahamian Party, had a very smooth transition from the longtime leader Sir Roland Symonette  era to Sir Jeffery Johnstone.

The FNM itself,  went through many changes, in true democratic fashion, never burdened by anything such as inside troublemakers, apparently trying feverishly/violently to frustrate the leadership of one Michael Pintard.

This is not right.  Let the man do his job in peace. 

From Sir Cecil Wallace to Sir Kendal Isaacs and back to Sir Cecil; to the three-time prime minister Hubert Alexander Ingraham; to Dr. Minnis; with interim leaders in place such as John Henry Bostwick, Cyril Tynes, and Tommy Turnquest; the FNM never faced anything even close to the present debacle.

It is therefore incumbent upon Pintard and the others within the FNM who have rationale, to immediately put the house in order.

Source 

Shanendon Cartwright on Politics and good public policy in The Bahamas

Is good public policy good politics? Absolutely!

The Commonwealth of The Bahamas has reached a pivotal and significant crossroad in our national development. Bahamians through their increased level of frustration and disenchantment with government have placed the impact and relevance of political leadership in the spotlight.

While there is always a natural tendency to focus on particular personalities, Bahamians are asking a much broader question of whether or not our politics is serving us well. They feel that governments have not, in some cases, functioned at their optimum; and this observation is in vivid contrast to the many political campaigns that are constantly ambitious, aggressive, accomplished to a degree, deliberate and simply get things done.

Their discontent and dissatisfaction is anchored by a fundamental and ever-present irony. We live in a time when answers to our prevailing questions, and possible solutions to our most challenging problems, are literally at our finger tips by way of our smartphones or the click of a mouse. Yet, there seems, and “seems” being the operative word here, to be a limited capacity on behalf of our governments at times to efficiently grapple with many of our country’s short- and long-term problems.

If I may, however, offer an alternate perspective. The Commonwealth of The Bahamas is a dynamic country with some of the best minds in the world. We are a country with a small population but produce people with extraordinary gifts, talents and supreme intelligence that light up the world stage at a higher rate than many countries with 10 times the number of people. That’s why it is my absolute belief and contention that the Commonwealth of The Bahamas is the greatest nation on Earth.

We have the answers to our problems. In my humble view, progress on particular issues is slow because in many cases governments have retreated to the corner of what they believe to be safe politics rather than standing firm on bold transformative policies. They are obsessed with the question, “Is good public policy, good politics?” I say absolutely!

Why is it necessary to discuss, deliberate and dissect this? Well, it’s obvious to the Bahamian people if you listen to them as I do that solutions rarely make it to their destination because of the political gauntlet and the perpetual campaigning that goes on. Bahamians see continuous politicking and not enough governing. Now don’t get me wrong we love ourselves some politics in The Bahamas. However, dipped in to our enthusiasm for the rhetoric and political jostling lies an entrenched and burning hope and real expectation that governing will start and things will get better in the country we love.

Politics and policy

There is a dance that is always happening between politics and policy – a waltz if you will. Politics is the mechanism and way in which we the Bahamian people choose our elected officials; the way in which politicians vie for acceptance from the Bahamian people. Policy, on the other hand, is the medium through which the elected officials should be advancing real change and transformation for the empowerment of the Bahamian people and the development of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Policy is where real, legitimate, courageous, life-changing, inspiring leadership stakes its claim. It is where history will herald contributions and determine legacies. Put another way: You have won an election? Now truly lead, govern and make things better in The Bahamas for future generations.

Political parties morph into governing parties once elected and seem to take the posture sometimes that the voter’s initial discomfort or anxiety with a particular policy proposal is sufficient to stop it in its tracks. This position, although I believe unintentional, discredits and insults the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the Bahamian people who are more than capable of sifting and navigating through proposed policy and project debates that are supposedly created to benefit them and the country.

Herein, in my estimation, lies an unescapable truth. While I have attempted to make a distinction between politics and policy in their purpose, there is an unavoidable seam at which they do meet; hence my argument. In most cases where the policy may be good, it isn’t the policy that the Bahamian public reject. It is the lackluster collection of weak explanations, half-truths, poor communication and failure to adequately engage the Bahamian people as a legislative partner. They fail to competently make the Bahamian people aware of how a proposed policy benefits them. After all, aren’t we supposed to know and feel like it will be good for us? Isn’t that the purpose of public policy?

Good policy

Amazingly when good policy has far-reaching and long-term impact, members of the electorate are prepared to subject themselves to some temporary discomfort and uneasiness. It’s similar and analogous to going to the doctor for a vaccination. The short-term experience of getting a needle is not necessarily desirable to many, but the long-term benefits of being immunized are well known. Yes, I do get and can concede that it’s natural for Bahamians to be less skeptical about what their doctors say compared to politician. But, the principle is the still the same. Adequately explain and convince the Bahamian people how they and the country will reap the rewards of the policy and they will embrace it despite the imperfections. When good policy doesn’t resonate, it’s either bad policy or there is a lack of persuasion.

Let me add to those who are just totally pessimistic about politics. What I’m highlighting is persuasion based on what is authentic and true about the specific policy, its merits and shortfalls. Conveying half-truths, lies and using smoke and mirrors about the policy do not amount to persuasion; that’s deception and manipulation and Bahamians will make you pay a political price for such a deed.

It is truly fascinating to me and many Bahamians that a sentiment and conviction exist on behalf of some on the political frontline, both politician and political technocrats, that suggesting certain policy proposals may lead to a political death trap. Here’s the irony in such thinking. Politicos pride themselves on being political geniuses – strategists of the highest order. They use the terms “leader” and “leadership” loosely when they should be used sparingly because a major part of political prowess, political leadership, if you will, and political competency is the ability to sincerely connect with and to articulate to the people what you are proposing in order to convince them that the measure is good for all and the country. There is nothing admirable about shrinking from tough decisions masquerading as political savvy and shrewd strategy. A weak, timid or fair-weather stance will not lead to real progress in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas; nor will it translate into meaningful change in the lives of Bahamians.

The greatest leaders across this God-given Earth have been persons, more often than not, who have lives that encompass vision, decisiveness, resolve, character, strength, selflessness and inspiration. The country we love – the Commonwealth of The Bahamas – will not flourish on easy decision making. Greater expectations demand greater responsibility from us as citizens; but also, especially our leaders. We need good public policies that will strengthen our economy and upgrade our fiscal standing so that Bahamians can enjoy real economic empowerment. We need good policies that will start to alleviate the debilitating scourge of crime and its elements. We need good policies that will ensure that our children have the best education in the world so that they can determine a better future for themselves. We need good policies that will make us a healthier nation regardless of socio-economic statuses. We need good policies that will better equip us to create even more world-class athletes and sporting programs. Most of all, we need good public policies to secure our Bahamian cultural identity and export it to the world.

Bahamians everywhere are demanding real change. They want to be inspired by a vision of a country that is only limited by what we can imagine. Bahamians want a Bahamas where the Bahamian is king. Bahamians have always been prepared to give, to sacrifice for the good of their country.

We are a giving people. It’s incumbent upon our leaders to advocate for and fight on behalf of the Bahamian people by presenting and communicating good public policy for their consideration that is sound, substantive, impactful, forward thinking and that cradles the hope and the aspirations of all Bahamians. There is no doubt in my mind that good public policy can transform, enrich and uplift the lives of Bahamians everywhere. And when the time is appropriate they will register their trust and approval at the ballot box. Is good public policy good politics? Absolutely!

• Shanendon E. Cartwright is a marketing and hospitality professional and the founder and facilitator of Vision 21 – an educational, motivational and interactive lecture series on leadership.

June 25, 2014

thenassauguardian

Flip-floppers and double talk in Bahamian Politics

Double talk

An up close look at duplicity and hypocrisy in nat’l politics

BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

The political landscape is forever changing and with it comes shifting political positions.

For some politicians, their views on issues of national import evolve due to certain developments that cast new light on these matters.  In some circumstances, this is quite understandable.

But for others, their positions shift based on political expediency and opportunity.

These are the flip-floppers, the hypocrites, the duplicitous bunch who may be stunned perhaps if confronted with past statements lined up against current views.

Very rarely do their words come back to haunt them; not because the evidence of their duplicity is not there, but because it often remains buried on the dusty pages of newspapers that are clipped and stored away.

These politicians depend on the short memories of the electorate, perhaps, or the failure of media to do a better job at making them accountable for their utterances and actions.

The examples of double talk stretch back years, and really take little digging to be exposed, especially in the technological age.

In opposition, some politicians latch on to pet issues — crime, the environment, education and others.  But in government, they sometimes lose whatever ‘passion’ they might have had for these issues.

To be clear, the flip-floppers are not unique to any one party or philosophical grouping. They are on every side.  They use words to score points, assuage fears and grab headlines.

Often, they change positions based on what side of the political aisle they may be on at the time.  In opposition, a politician’s view on a subject may differ entirely from the view he or she might express in government.

The archives of The Nassau Guardian reveal more than enough flip-flopping, duplicity and hypocrisy to write many weeks of articles.

Consider these few examples:

Dr. Bernard Nottage on the Coroner’s Court

In opposition, Dr. Nottage was a passionate advocate for crime victims and strong in his concerns about alleged police abuse.

He seemed to have little trust in the Corner’s Court or in the police to investigate themselves.

But as national security minister, his tone is different.

After two men died in police custody just over a week ago, Dr. Nottage cautioned the public against making assumptions until all the facts are known.

“I can’t rush to judgment,” he told reporters.  “I hold the commissioner of police directly responsible for the conduct of his officers.  He knows that, he reports to me regularly and my experience thus far has been where justifiable complaints have been made against police officers, the commissioner has been resolute in pursuing the matter to its lawful conviction.”

Further expressing confidence in the police and the coroner to do their job, Dr. Nottage said, “It is my view that even without the coroner’s involvement if the matter could be investigated by police that a thorough job would be done.

“But I don’t think that would satisfy the public and so that is why the coroner, who is an independent institution, is very important in this matter.”

In September 2012, after The Nassau Guardian reported on several fatal police shootings, Nottage said criminals cannot expect to brandish weapons at police without facing consequences.

In December 2010, he was not a minister.  Back then he expressed little faith in the police and in the Coroner’s Court.

On December 1, 2010, he called for an independent public inquiry into the death of Shamarco Newbold, a 19-year-old who was killed by police.

“It is not good enough to refer it to the Coroner’s Court, Mr. Speaker,” Nottage said in the House of Assembly.

“Neither is it good enough for there to be an internal inquiry on the part of the police.”

These days, it is good enough as far as Nottage is concerned.

As an aside, Nottage has yet to use his position of power to push for ‘Marco’s Law’ or the establishment of a sex offenders’ register, things he called for while in opposition, after the murder of 11-year-old Marco Archer in September 2011.

“I believe that out of this sad event will come new policies and perhaps even new legislation... possibly a Marco's Law.  I shall push for that," he vowed back then.

The legislation would seek to strengthen the penalties associated with child molestation, he said.

Perhaps Dr. Nottage will use his weight before the end of this term to push for the things he called for in opposition.

Darron Cash and BTC

Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Darron Cash has more than one example of being a flip-flopper, but for the purpose of this piece, I will focus on just one.

After Prime Minister Perry Christie told reporters last week that the government is considering appointing a select committee to examine the controversial 2011 sale of 51 percent of the shares of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), Cash lashed out in a statement.

He said, “The suggestion that [Christie] wants a probe of the BTC sale to Cable and Wireless first evokes disbelief, then laughter and pity”.

Cash then urged the government to “bring it on”.

He said probing BTC would be a “meaningless journey” that would waste taxpayer dollars.

Cash also accused Christie of trying to deflect attention away from his “nine months of colossal failure and ineptitude”.

And he said the prime minister was attempting to tarnish the legacy of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.

Stunning words from a man who was so critical of the BTC deal back in 2011 that he wrote a lengthy article on why the deal was a bad one.

In fact, Cash himself urged then Prime Minister Ingraham to “take the Cable and Wireless/LIME deal back to the drawing board and design a better deal”.

Cash wrote, “I disagree with the government’s proposed action.  I believe it is wrong for the country, this decision to sell the country short.

“It is a betrayal of future generations, and like a bad stock on BISX — in which you have little confidence — the government is selling the next generation (my generation) short.”

In that piece, Cash seemed to have suggested that the deal would have reflected poorly on Ingraham’s legacy.  His tone has changed.

How could Darron Cash expect anyone to take him seriously?

If it is the FNM’s position that Christie’s contemplation of a probe is laughable or evokes pity, Cash should have been the last person to say so.

His position on the BTC deal was clear at the time he stated it.

Defending himself yesterday, Cash said, “As to my personal position regarding the sale of BTC, let me make one thing abundantly clear to the chairman of the PLP; my position on the sale of BTC has absolutely nothing to do with whether the present government should waste public money on a meaningless inquiry into that sale.”

The mid-year budget statement

This week, the Christie administration will present its mid-year budget statement, revealing adjustments in spending and providing a progress report on the state of public finances and the economy.

The practice of presenting the statement was instituted by the Ingraham administration, and every year during the debate that followed, the PLP’s position was that it was a waste of time.

In a statement on February 23, 2011, the PLP said the mid-year budget was “a waste of time, a public relations sham like so much of what this government does by sleight of hand”.

It was the message of the PLP during each debate of the mid-year budget under Ingraham.

For example, during debate in the Senate on March 16, 2009, then Senator Allyson Maynard-Gibson repeated what her colleagues had to say in the House.

“The mid-year budget review is a waste of time, staff resources and money,” she opined. “The information in this mid-year budget could have been given in a one man press conference.”

A few days earlier, then Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney defended the Ingraham administration for bringing the mid-year budget.

“Our country should be forever grateful to our visionary prime minister, the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham, for having the fore thought to introduce this concept of a mid-year budget report to Parliament,” McCartney said.

“…This exercise is critical towards our government’s effort to encourage and promote accountability, transparency, best financial practices and proper budget planning”.

This year, the mid-year budget statement will apparently not be a waste of time because the PLP is bringing it.

Such is politics I suppose.

Unemployment numbers

The Department of Statistics recently released new unemployment numbers that show the unemployment rate in The Bahamas decreased slightly from 14.7 percent to 14 percent.

The latest survey was conducted from October 29 to November 4, 2012. It showed that 165,255 were listed as employed and 26,950 were listed as unemployed.

The governing party welcomed the news, saying it is evidence that Christie and his team are moving the economy in the right direction.

While it was only a slight decrease, Minister of State for Finance Michael Halkitis said it was good news nonetheless.

But unlike August 2011, the PLP had no concerns that the Department of Statistics did not count discouraged workers — that group of people who are willing to work but who have become so discouraged they have given up looking for work.

Back then when the department released numbers showing that the rate had dropped from 14.2 percent to 13.7 percent, the PLP criticized statisticians who had conducted the survey.

In fact, the party staged a demonstration. That’s right, a demonstration, placards and all.

During that protest, Elizabeth MP Ryan Pinder said unless discouraged workers are added to the unemployment figure, the overall statistics are “misleading”.

At the same protest, Halkitis said the Ingraham administration was excluding those numbers in an effort to show that the economy is turning around.

Why is no one in the PLP demanding that discouraged workers be included in the latest calculation of the unemployment rate?  Could it be because they are now in power?

At the time of that 2011 protest, Director of the Department of Statistics Kelsie Dorsett fired back, saying both the PLP and the FNM too often use the statistics to gain political points.

“Both the Free National Movement and the Progressive Liberal Party have short-term memories when it comes to how the process works,” Dorsett told The Guardian.

With politicians flip-flopping on so many issues like unemployment numbers, it is likely that the electorate will become even more suspicious, jaded, skeptical and untrusting of politicians.

After all, nobody loves a hypocrite.

February 18, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Urban Renewal 2.0 is bigger than politics ...and for it to work effectively it has to be “above politics” ... says Prime Minister Perry Christie

Renewal 'Bigger Than Politics'

 

By DENISE MAYCOCK
Tribune Freeport  Reporter
dmaycock@tribunemedia.net


FREEPORT - Prime Minister Perry Christie says Urban Renewal 2.0 is bigger than politics and for it to work effectively it has to be “above politics”.

“Our politics must always take second place to the essential issue of moving the Bahamas forward,” Mr Christie said on Wednesday at the official launch of the programme in Grand Bahama at the Hilton Outten Convention Centre.

 Deputy Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis, and other cabinet ministers, including National Security Minister Dr Bernard Nottage, Minister of Transport and Aviation Glenys Hanna-Martin, and Labour Minister Shane Gibson were also present.

Mr Christie expressed his complete confidence in the appointment of Algernon Allen, former FNM Cabinet minister, and Cynthia “Mother” Pratt, former PLP Deputy Prime Minister, to head the Urban Renewal commission.

He said both are distinguished Bahamians who have a feel for people and who have the capacity to rise above politics.

“As Prime Minister, I have to call on the all the people regardless of their politics. The MPs in Grand Bahama all of them should understand that it is bigger than them.  

“We are all in transition and this is about establishing a culture in this country where young men know that if they walk into somebody’s house and rape or try to rape, they will be caught and they will be severely punished.

“This is the reason why in our selection for the leaders of the Urban Renewal commission, we chose two distinguish Bahamians – Algernon Allen, a former minister in the FNM government, is that he has demonstrated in a public capacity a feel for people, and young people in this country.

“And co-leader, Cynthia Pratt, who served as DPM, brings to this mission an incredible feel for people and one, who I think, like Algernon, has the capacity to rise above politics.”

In his remarks, Mr Allen said he comes “as a spiritual son of Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, but also a philosophical brother of Prime Minister Perry Christie.”  

He said that Urban Renewal is about changing lives – transforming a home, a street, and a community and uplifting those in need.

“This will be above politics. We send a clarion call to all to join us,” Mr Allen said.

July 19, 2012

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

In our current political system, where party politics takes precedence over true representational politics ...where there are few benchmarks to truly differentiate candidates or parties ...we are confronted with several negative side effects: namely, the emergence of a politics of personality ...instead of a politics of ideas and action ...or personal accountability

Overcoming The Party Allegiance


.
TALKING SENSE
By KHALILA NICOLLS

khalilanicolls@gmail.com

tribune242



I STARTED this campaign cycle annoyed by the fact that Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham's faces were plastered all over my constituency, considering I live far from North Abaco and far from Centreville, where these men, both leaders of their respective political parties, are offering themselves as candidates in the May 7 general election.

I was fighting hard to hold on to the principled view that party credentials should not take precedence over candidate credentials, because in our democratic system of representational politics, my vote is supposed to represent the individual vying in my constituency whom I deem best to represent my voice. That principled view calls me to consider each representative without reference to political party propaganda.

I have resigned myself from that utopian view, once and for all, for the following reasons: members of parliament do not represent the voices of the people, they represent the voices of their party; and members of parliament have no power to affect change, unless they are in the inner circles of influence in their political parties.

Further, we exist in a democracy where choice is a contest between "worse and worser", where most candidates, across party lines, are ideologically identical.

And last, but not least, I have the unfortunate misfortune of finding among all of the candidates, few who identify with critical visions that I have of myself as a Bahamian. I plan to tackle my first two concerns in the first of this two-part series.

In our two-party political system (no offence to the DNA and the rest of them), constituency representatives no more represent my voice than they do the voice of their rivals. How could they, when they barely represent their own voices?

How many times have you seen a member of parliament stand up for a personal belief that conflicted with a party's position? Even where they do so in private circles, rarely do they step into the public spotlight, exposing their party to such scrutiny.

In our political system, power is confined to a small inner circle of people with influence. Anyone with status, outside the circle, is a mere puppet, and all others are mere pawns. It seems like a cynical view of our democracy, but experience proves it every time.

Is this healthy for our democracy? No. Is this our reality? Yes. Members of parliament pledge an unspoken allegiance to their political parties, and they take that vow more seriously than any responsibility to be a true representative of the people who put them in office.

Very few MPs, if any at all, organise meaningful community engagements on issues of national importance before they stand up in the House of Assembly to spout off impassioned party positions. How exactly do they represent the voices of the community, if they have no relationship with their communities?

Members of Parliament are infamously absent from constituency offices. In fact, outside of the election cycle, constituency offices are inactive black holes.

It is not that members of parliament serve no purpose; they simply serve a purpose other than that which we wish they would or should.

As private citizens, at some point we need start questioning this notion of representational politics, so we can collectively figure out a better way to extract value, not ham and turkey, from the political leaders who form our government and claim to represent our voices. Because, quite frankly, I am tired of smoking the dreams they are selling.

Members of Parliament, and not just those in opposition, constantly cry about their inability to access the resources of the government to affect change at the constituency level. It is not entirely their fault: our MPs have been trained to be professional beggars of government hand-outs in a system that was not designed to support that sort of representation.

On the other hand, our MPs make themselves impotent, because they have no other concept of their own capacity to represent.

Our political system only supports our development at the constituency level when our community interests are already aligned with the political plans of those with power and influence. If a constituency priority is on the government's agenda, all is well, and you can be sure that initiative is advancing the agenda of a political party, in some form or fashion. If not, then 'dog nyam ya supper'.

V Alfred Gray, MP for MICAL, is a case in point. He routinely comes to the House of Assembly with impassioned whining, and he calls that representation. Most times, his cries fall on deaf ears. And even when the government acts in the interest of Mr Gray's constituents, more than likely, it has nothing to do with Mr Gray, and everything to do with the government's own agenda. The recently passed the Mayaguana Development Bill is a prime example.

For our democracy to grow and to work for its people, we need to develop a new concept of representational politics: one that does not involve delusional ideas that our members of parliament actually represent our voices, or have any real power.

Members of Parliament are instruments of political parties, seeking to acquire and maintain power to satisfy their own interests. We get lucky when those interests align with our own, and when they serve the greater good.

For the sake of imagining, I propose a more practical and useful concept of representational politics that envisions members of parliament more as community organisers and accountable community leaders, which would require no hand-outs from the government, or huge capital investments. It would require vision, leadership, commitment, concern, community engagement and the capacity to mobilise resources in the interest of communities.

I envision a system where our idea of democracy is bigger than our concept of a vote every five years in a general election; where our political representatives are accountable to their communities and not their political parties.

In our current system, where party politics takes precedence over true representational politics, where there are few benchmarks to truly differentiate candidates or parties, we are confronted with several negative side effects: namely, the emergence of a politics of personality, instead of a politics of ideas and action, or personal accountability.

Candidates hide behind parties and parties hide behind their leaders, which leaves party leaders to engage in childhood play to prove who the best is. Our candidates and the parties have an important characteristic in common: they both have an impoverished vision of democracy and national development; and sadly, their equality shields them from scrutiny.

The country believes it is gearing up for a general election, but what is really taking shape is a personality contest, a battle of two politically savvy wits.

More next time, as I continue my examination of voting for the party or the person with the case of Nassau Village.

Talkin Sense explores issues of race, culture, politricks and identity. Pan-African writer and cultural scholar Noelle Khalila Nicolls is a practising journalist in the Bahamas.


April 12, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Haitian President Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly's visit to The Bahamas and the politics of Bahamian Politicians in regards to it

By Dennis Dames:



The recent visit by the president of Haiti, Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly to The Bahamas - has created the perfect non-issue for political parties that are grasping at straws. The Haitian President advised Bahamian voters of Haitian descent to simply vote for the party and candidates that best suit their interests – in the upcoming general election. It’s something that we all should do; it’s the essence of politics and elections in a democracy in my view.

So what’s the uproar all about? Well, they are looking for votes by hook or crook. So, one easy way to do it is to stir up the emotion of the Bahamian electorate on the illegal immigration issue; where unregulated Haitians are at the heart. Offering substantive suggestions on how we could deal effectively with our illegal immigration challenges are lacking on the part of political parties in The Bahamas; especially the opposition lot. Their prime perspective is to send all illegals home forthwith; nothing more – nothing less. It’s an impractical and unworkable solution laced with man’s inhumanity to man – in my opinion.

The fringe political party, Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and its politically crazy leader – Branville McCartney went to town with all kinds of nonsense regarding the Haitian President’s words to his people and Bahamian-Haitian voters. He said that the president’s remarks were a direct attack on Bahamian democracy and all Bahamians. McCartney further stated that “Sweet Micky” should respect the sovereignty of our democracy. What did Mr. Martelly do or say that we missed which instigated such empty sentiments by the leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA)?

Bradley Roberts, Chairman of the official opposition - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) said that he thought that it was an insult to the Bahamian people that a foreigner would come to The Bahamas to instruct Bahamian citizens to vote one way or the other. When did president Martelly do this Mr. Roberts?

Others have said that the president of Haiti’s visit was ill-timed because of a general election being around the corner in The Bahamas.

The bottom-line is this: opposition parties in The Bahamas feel and know deep inside their hearts that Bahamian voters of Haitian descent will support the governing Free National Movement (FNM) in the greatest numbers in the approaching general election; because Haitian-Bahamians believe that the FNM is the political vehicle in The Bahamas that has their best interest at heart.

The other parties are strong on their anti-foreign and immigrant messages. Everyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear knows this. Do not blame Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly for the hate and divisions within the Bahamian society caused by Bahamian politicians who simply do not like outsiders.

The time has come for the Bahamian people to realize the enormous benefits of trade and cooperation with our neighbor to the south – Haiti. President Martelly spoke about creating jobs for his people so that they do not have to leave Haiti looking for the same; and he encouraged his compatriots in The Bahamas to return home to help build their poor nation.

The main purpose of the Haitian president’s visit to The Bahamas according to news reports was to promote Haiti as a nation ripe for investments and full of opportunities. He encouraged his people to unite with him to turn things around in Haiti for the durable better.

President Martelly brought hope to his people in The Bahamas, and Bahamians should see the wisdom and benefits of a Haiti on the move with increasing economic benefits to The Bahamas and its people.

This is something to rejoice about, and Bahamians should welcome a new era of success and prosperity with Haiti and its people.

Caribbean Blog International

If workers are serious about their employment, they will think twice before being led astray by union leaders ...some of whom seem to have politics on their minds rather than the interest of the men and women whose best interests they claim to represent

WHOSE INTEREST DO UNION LEADERS REPRESENT?

tribune242 editorial




LOOKING over The Tribune's Labour files a few days ago we came across an interesting statement by hotel managerial union leader Obie Ferguson, who accused Freeport's Our Lucaya Beach resort of "union busting" by planning to lay off 50 managerial staff.

"Now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he told The Tribune, "I thought that now would be the time to do what should be done. Workers' rights are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do."

Mr Ferguson made this statement in January last year at a time when in the estimation of every business person on the island - especially in Freeport -- the economy was looking even bleaker. And so we do not know how Mr Ferguson measures economic recovery. Maybe he had a glimpse of the hotel's financial statements and from that concluded that the hotel could support what he claimed "had to be done" and still keep its doors open.

At the time, Mr Ferguson was pressing Minister Dion Foulkes for permission for his union, which he said represented more than 100 of the resort's staff, to take a strike vote that would pave the way for disruptive action at the property.

Meanwhile, Nicole Martin, whose union represented the same hotel's line staff, was worried about increases she said were owed to the line staff under their industrial agreement. Earlier, the resort had announced that its Christmas season was not as good as hoped. It had told the union that since 2009 it was not in a financial position to meet those demands.

Earlier, it was acknowledged that the resort's owners, Hutchinson-Whampoa, had been subsidising the hotel's payroll. Prime Minister Ingraham had even praised the company for its supportive attitude towards the hotel and its staff during difficult financial times.

But Mr Ferguson must have had a vision. He saw things differently and thought it was time for some union muscle flexing.

When we read his statement, we could not help but think of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Although blind, and having to rely on touch alone, each had to "satisfy his mind" as to what an elephant looked like.

The first fell against the broad sturdy side of the elephant and decided it "is very like a wall." The second felt the tusk and decided it was like a "spear." And so on down the line -- the squirming trunk felt like a snake; the knee felt like a tree; the ear felt like a fan and the sixth was convinced that the swinging tail was "very like a rope".

And so the dispute began, each convinced as to what an elephant looked like and "though each was partly in the right... all were in the wrong!"

As none of them had seen the whole elephant, despite their arguing none of them knew what an elephant really looked like.

And so with these unionists, who although they never see the whole picture and do not know what obligations have to be met before salary increases can be considered, are always convinced that owners can and should meet their demands.

At present, Kerzner International is fighting to meet its financial obligations. It has a good management team that will do everything in its power to maintain staff levels and also meet its debts. Those debt obligations are extremely high. If they are not met, unless some agreement can be arrived at, the Kerzner team could lose its four-year management contract. And so, staff will have to be thankful for their jobs, and turn deaf ears to any demands that their union might tempt them to take during this difficult period. Even if they see every rooms filled to capacity every day of the year, unions nor staff can assume -- like the six blind men of Indostan -- that the hotel is making a handsome profit, and that there is any room for staff to make more.

We do not understand some of these union leaders. They complain that Freeport has no business and yet when organisations are trying to attract business, the union decides to demonstrate. For example, what possessed Freeport hotel workers to demonstrate at Grand Lucaya resort on the very day Vision Airlines and the Ministry of Tourism were hosting 80 travel agents and other tourism promoters from the United States? The visitors were invited there for a two-day familiarization trip in the hopes that they would recommend more visitors to fill the hotel. Imagine the very people who would benefit from a hotel full of guests, would decide instead to drive potential business away by demonstrations. Who can have sympathy for such short-sighted people?

And to add insult to injury their union leader had the nerve to pull another demonstration to complain that the 37 workers who scuttled an attempt to get more business for the hotel were fired.
Just where are these people coming from? From an outsider looking in, it seems that some unionists have a different agenda. Are they deliberately leading their members astray?

Who is going to sympathise with any worker who is going to undermine the efforts of people who are trying to bring more business to a resort to secure their jobs?

If workers are serious about their employment, they will think twice before being led astray by union leaders some of whom seem to have politics on their minds rather than the interest of the men and women whose best interests they claim to represent.

January 16, 2012

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The politicians and the politics of the 1990s -- even of 2007 -- are obsolete... And as far as the politics of The Bahamas is concerned, both of our long-standing parties have seemed comfortable with the formula bequeathed to us by our colonial forefathers; a pepper-pot of traditionalism in some areas and a discourse of modernisation in others -- a dish which has resulted in the gradual disintegration of the Bahamian middle class over the last decade in the face of a global economy in transition, concentrating wealth more and more in fewer peoples' hands

Making the case for a national political debate



By JOEY GASKINS


EXPLICITLY, my intention is to present an argument for why I believe this election season requires a debate between the leaders of the three most visible political parties.

There are, I would argue, questions that remain concerning the lack of any pronounced or marked ideological difference between these three parties, and in these difficult times the Bahamas needs thoughtful and critical leadership.

Public debate should enrich the political process and supply Bahamians with varying and alternative imaginings of our possibilities as nation. It seems clear to me that the level of public debate in the Bahamas cannot adequately answer this challenge.

As a bonus, I hope this piece will also serve as an indictment of politics as usual in the Bahamas and an appeal directed especially at young voters. Those with influence often accuse us of apathy while simultaneously shirking responsibility for our current condition.

I fear that we will follow in their footsteps -- deifying political leaders and being baptised in red, yellow or green (or whatever the colours of the day are) on the altar of our own political immaturity. This is not the time to reify that tradition; we know now where that path leads. Look around you.

Bahamians have unfortunately been let down by a great deal of our erstwhile political pundit class, many of whom seem, quite frankly, bitter. A number of these political commentators betray what can only be described as hurt feelings and personal vendettas in their writing and on the radio.

In turn they've become the spin doctors of choice for their patron political parties, making house calls even. I'm certainly skeptical that they can be relied on to provide non-partisan opinions and I've long since rid myself of the expectation that this particular sphere of influence will ever mount a meaningful challenge to the status quo.

Colin A Hughes reminds us in his book, Race and Politics in the Bahamas, during the run-up to the 1967 election, the two most read papers in the Bahamas, The Tribune and The Nassau Guardian, both seemed to support the ruling United Bahamian Party (UBP).

These days there is no white supremacist regime that must be challenged. Instead, the status quo is represented by the uncritical and empty party politics that characterises our electoral contests.

As the revolutionary theorist, Antonio Gramsci, makes clear, there are two types of intellectuals: those who align with emergent, new intellectual and social forces, and those who work to maintain the old. The Bahamas has more than its fair share of the latter.

Facebook has seemingly provided an opportunity for more democratic political debate. However, upon closer inspection, you realise that only a few people are actually speaking.

The walls for Bahamian political Facebook groups are dominated by a small fraction of the members, most of whom are vehemently partisan mouth pieces for their team of choice.

I use the word "team" carefully, because many Bahamians treat political parties like they would a sport team -- counting who had the most people at the home game, idolising the star quarterback, comparing the roster and trash talking.

Most sports teams are devoid of ideology and I would argue our political parties are as well. For the majority of Bahamians, I would imagine that this doesn't matter; what counts is which team scores the winning touchdown. We've yet to learn that in this kind of a game everyone loses.
Sadly, referencing Hughes' book, you will quickly learn that in the early years of the 20th century the Bahamian electorate viewed the election season as a chance to get something for nothing -- then it was rum and rice. What is now, a free T-shirt and a Christmas ham?

When, as made clear by the Bahamian Wikileaks, our politicians are comfortable claiming that "free paraphernalia" is one of the most important factors in winning an election, this particular piece of history becomes significant.

Hughes' also remarks that for politicians, elections amounted to nothing more than sporting events, a game between peers carried out over generations. Ninety plus years later and things seems remarkably the same. Maybe it's an age thing but when politicians shout, "Come on down," at each other across the parliamentary aisle I can't help but think of "The Price is Right."

The lack of universal participation on Facebook may be because of apathy, but I've observed another possible explanation: outsiders and disagreeable opinions are not welcome.

In preparation for this article I decided to engage in some informal ethnographic research. I even participated in the discussion on few posts as an independent voter.

In one particular instance, my intervention was not appreciated. According to one of the regulars, my point of view apparently violated the "wisdom of God." And when I pointed out the wisdom of God, as espoused by man, has been used by man to inflict pain and suffering, no less on our own ancestors, things got ugly.

The good Christian who originally countered my argument Biblically, called me everything but a child of God, blocked me and apparently continued insulting me so that I could not respond. Meanwhile, others rushed to the post, and with a click of the "Like" button and "lol" in repetition, they patted each other on their virtual backs for maintaining a comfortable level of ignorance and aggressively defending business as usual.

This perhaps provides some insight: even on Facebook, where the access to political debate has been democratised, only certain people get to speak about certain things, and only in certain ways. There is no space on the Bahamian political landscape for alternative political discourses and few have been brave enough to try and make space.

Go off the reservation, show the ruptures of illogicality in age-old political wisdom, the senselessness in so-called political common sense, and face a collective wrath.

You can dare to question the status-quo but know that at the very least you and possibly your family will be blocked, insulted and laughed at. This is something made intelligible after my last article for this paper. My untraditional (dare I say un-Bahamian) position on homosexuality cost a family member a job opportunity. None of this makes for meaningful, respectful or productive debate, does it?

How then can a national political debate transform the grim picture I've just painted?

Honestly, it can't. But, it is a step in the right direction. Against my better judgment, I want to suggest that if anyone should be responsible for showing the Bahamian people how to conduct the kind of political debates necessary for us arrive at the best political conclusion for our country, it is our political leaders.

A nationally televised, internet streamed, radio broadcast of our two seasoned political leaders and the firebrand new contender debating policy, defining differences in ideology and comparing visions of the Bahamian future is beneficial for all, especially the Bahamian people.

I know I'm not alone when I say that I'm interested in hearing what our hopeful leaders have to offer, outside of the theatrics of adversarial parliamentary posturing and away from the throngs of adoring fans. Despite the fact that some political leaders believe they must no longer compete for their inevitable ascendancy, that they are tried and tested, these are new and unusual times.

The politicians and the politics of the 1990s -- even of 2007 -- are obsolete. And as far as the politics of the Bahamas is concerned, both of our long-standing parties have seemed comfortable with the formula bequeathed to us by our colonial forefathers, a pepper-pot of traditionalism in some areas and a discourse of modernisation in others -- a dish which has resulted in the gradual disintegration of the Bahamian middle class over the last decade in the face of a global economy in transition, concentrating wealth more and more in fewer peoples' hands.

This is also not the most opportune time for a greenhorn politician to stake a leadership claim with a less than impressive political resume. The simple answer would be to say the Bahamas needs a new politician or a new political party, when in actuality what I think we need is a new politics. I am left unconvinced that, in what has become a politics plagued by ego, we should suffer yet another political contender asserting his dominion over our government with an air of entitlement.

Prime Minister Ingraham could once and for all show the truth of the Free National Movement's record, and himself as a man of action. Mr Christie could mount a clear opposition to the FNM, and set out a bold vision for the Bahamas as imagined by the Progressive Liberal Party. It would also benefit Mr McCartney, who could finally show all of those who doubt him that he can contend on the national level and that Democratic National Alliance's promises of hope for the Bahamian people are not empty.

Not only is it time for Prime Minister Ingraham, Mr Christie and Mr. McCartney to explain why any of them should be allowed to stand at our country's helm in these rough waters, but it is time for the people of this country to require it of them. In the past, we've failed to hold our leaders truly accountable.

When the Prime Minister feels it is within his right to say that the new contender won't be carrying "his tings" anywhere, the Bahamian people must necessarily retort, "Tell us why you think you'll be carrying our tings anywhere?"

When the leader of the opposition places the blame for our country's current economic condition squarely on the shoulders of the sitting government, the Bahamian people must necessarily inquire, "How does your partisan rhetoric square with the reality of a global economic downturn, and what exactly would you do differently?"

When the dewy political newcomer promises change and hope, the Bahamian people must necessarily interrogate - "How do you intend to deliver given the greenness of you and your party -- a hastily stitched together team of entrants -- and what can you offer that will change the game?"

And, when the only difference between the various parties seem to be colour scheme and personality, aren't we really choosing between parties intent on steering us basically down the same path, perhaps some more vigorously than others?

To echo a ghost from the Bahamian political past, and referencing Hughes' book yet again, in 1971 the youthful Vanguard Nationalist and Socialist Party (VNSP) wrote of the PLP, "The lack of a basic and coherent political philosophy ...has been a major factor in its failure ...to correct the abuses of Bahamian society by the wealthy few, to create genuine political and economic opportunity."

When it comes to politics, in the same way the media and the electorate have remained seemingly unchanged decades later, I would argue that the charge levied against the PLP in 1971 is true of all our political parties today. You may not like the source but they had a point then and they have point now.

What we have here is not a failure to communicate but a history of neglect concerning the Bahamian political consciousness by the Bahamian political elite -- neglect that, in the end, benefits them. It's time we do something differently.

They say a people deserves its leaders. If that is true, it begs the question, what kind of a people are we?

Post-1973 Bahamians have often shown themselves to be a people divided by frivolous considerations like loyalty to political parties with no clear ideological direction and politicians that are scandal ridden, self-indulgent and entitled.

Because of our inability to unite around holding our political leaders accountable, those whose interests are contrary to the welfare of the Bahamian working and middle classes often succeed in having those interests met.

I hate to use polemical and loaded phrases like "ruling class" and "foreign interests," but as Bahamians battle each other over an ever-widening terrain, even on virtual socialscapes like Facebook, it is the Bahamian bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and foreign interests that benefit from this distraction.

Our leaders should be the ones fighting -- warring for our trust and confidence, crusading for our well-being. Until we demand that our government and the opposition speak to their value outside of the comfortable, staged events of political rallies and the "Real Politicians of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas" docudrama that is our parliament proceedings (divas, cat fights and all), those of us who the government should serve -- the people -- will find ourselves left fighting over whatever gets tossed our way. And sadly, at this moment, there's not much to go around.

Joey Gaskins is a graduate of Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY with a BA in Politics. He was born in Grand Bahama and is currently studying at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where he has attained his MSc in Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies and has begun a Doctoral Degree in Sociology. Joey also writes for the Bahamas Weekly and the Nassau Liberal.

December 30, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

The current state of Bahamian politics and suggestions for what is required for the future political and socio-economic development of The Bahamas and the Bahamian people (Part-2)

Who’s looking in the mirror? Part II

By Raynard Rigby

This is the second and final part of a two-part series which examines the current state of Bahamian politics and makes suggestions for what is required for the future political and socio-economic development of The Bahamas and the Bahamian people.  In Part I, we examined the state of our current political leadership and the need for new dynamic visionary leadership.

A vision for the future

A compelling argument can be made that The Bahamas has not really had a progressive agenda since the 1980s.  We have been on a singular path to economic development: foreign intervention by an investor directed at the tourist sector and real estate sales.  This has led to a narrowed path to development.  Both the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM), under Christie and Ingraham, have not sought to craft a meaningful policy so as to lead to the Bahamianization of the economy.  Christie as prime minister often boasted about the billions of dollars that were attracted to the country during his single term.  This was the clearest sign that his ideology was grounded in a view of the country that the economy could only be expanded by the foreign ‘savior’.  His philosophy was identical to that of Ingraham, who is able to take credit for the rejuvenation of the tourism sector when Sol Kerzner came off the plane and transformed the Paradise Island plant.  No one can honestly criticize the brilliance of Kerzner and his long-term impact on the national tourism product.

In the midst of our economic successes (limitedly defined by the provision of meager paying jobs) there has been no public recognition for the gifts that are housed in the Bahamian soul; of industry, hard work, creativity and a unique spirit to withstand poverty and economic downturns.  Yet, there are those who wear red, gold and now green, who in their quiet moments, dream of a better Bahamas. This dream is centered on a better life and a larger share of the economic pie.

In the recent PLP mini-convention on the economy, I was shocked that no substantive talk was centered on the expansion of the economy to allow for greater Bahamian participation.  No talk of economic diversification with the attendant specific plans.  No promise of a LNG industry with the introduction of stiff regulations.  Not a whisper of oil exploration and the introduction of the comprehensive regulatory laws.  No promise to establish a Ministry of National Development to ensure that within a specific targeted period that there will be a deliberate push to create an expanded entrepreneurial base.  Not even a whisper for the need, a national imperative, to craft a policy to guarantee the ownership by Bahamians of banks and hotels and major businesses.  So for me, there was a deep sense of disappointment and a confirmation that there still remains today a profound lack of vision in framing a progressive statement by the PLP, as many would expect.  The PLP is expected to be the premier champion of an agenda that has at its core the principles of shared-prosperity amongst the citizenry.  This event was for me a startling confirmation that the PLP today, some months from a general election, still lacks a vision for the future (perhaps other than Urban Renewal 2.0).

Our future – what about crime?

In my discussions with many young and middle-aged Bahamians I sense a growing frustration about what they perceive the future will bring.  Many have fears of crime and the increasing criminality, yet they know that both parties are guilty of playing politics with crime, blaming each other and demanding the then sitting minister to resign.  It was then Deputy Prime Minister Cynthia Pratt in 2002-2007;  and now Minister Tommy Turnquest has had to face the same silly and naive onslaught.  Sensible Bahamians know that no politician can fix the crime issue.  And those same Bahamians know that Urban Renewal (whether 1.0 or 2.0), the stellar PLP solution, is not the panacea for crime.  The truth is that the FNM’s and the PLP’s so-called solutions for crime are similar in that they are both predominantly focused on the aftermath of crime – that is, the steps to catch the criminal and keep him locked away for years.  No politician and no leader have addressed the question about the lack of assimilation by the majority of Bahamians of Haitian lineage; and they have been deathly silent on the effects and frustrations of those who are stateless.  And what about the fact that too many young Bahamians have no path and no interest in playing a meaningful role in the mainstay economy.

Too, we must recognize that we are reaping the effects of the drug culture, the get rich fast and easy culture.

No plan has addressed the systematic challenges that increased poverty has brought on for far too many families, some due to the fact that they are single parent homes, underpayment of salaries and a lack of educational opportunities for mobility.  On the latter, I have been so disappointed in the PLP by the fact that we kept in place a loan scholarship program which is a failure of the realities that there are still far too many Bahamians who cannot afford a tertiary or post graduate education.  I know that I would not have earned two degrees without the bonded scholarship scheme.  The PLP has betrayed its philosophy on this (and other) issue(s).

Many too have a deepening frustration about the state of the educational system and the high percentage of those who still graduate without being able to read, write or do basic arithmetic.  Perry Christie has promised to double the national budget’s contribution to education.  He has on two separate occasions failed to explain where he is going to increase the nation’s revenue stream to make this promise a reality.  He has also failed to explain to the public how the money will be spent and what will be the measurable and attainable goals.  He has not said that the school year and days will be extended.  He has not promised to increase the salaries of teachers to encourage an expansion in the local talent pool.  And he has not even suggested that there will be attempts to determine and thereby to introduce same-sex schools to foster improved performance amongst boys.  In this era of increased knowledge, our political leaders must talk sense and this means sharing details and not engaging in sheer rhetoric and bald empty promises.  The leader must have credibility of ideas and must recognize that there are intelligent Bahamians who will dissect ideas to ensure that they follow a pattern of logic and commonsense.

On the other hand, Hubert Ingraham boasts that he is a doer, and that Christie is a mere talker.  This descriptive analogy of the two was made during the recent debate on the rules to govern the multimillion dollar straw market.  Well, truth is that the PLP didn’t build the market in its term (2002 to 2007), notwithstanding the fact that the profile of a straw vendor is expected to be a PLP supporter or sympathizer.  For some voters, Ingraham’s characterization of Christie bears truth.  Ingraham though is no angel.  He has some challenges in his style of governance.  In this era of informed-participation, the Bahamian people expect a leader who can make decisions but who is also prepared to engage the electorate in national conversations and constructive dialogue.

Additionally, the Bahamian people expect a leader who has a vision for the country that is beyond a five-year cycle.  Both the PLP and the FNM have published limited manifestos or action agendas that only set out their promises for a single term in office.  Cassius Stuart, when he was leader of the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) (I struggled to remember the party’s name), often spoke of a national development plan spanning beyond 10 years.  He was dead right and on point.  None of our current leaders understand this.  They are lazy dreamers.  They are not long-term planners and they have no sense that they are called upon to lead a people.  Sir Lynden Pindling was masterful at this.  He shared a vision and a plan.  You could close your eyes and see where you or your children could be in 10 or 20 years.  He campaigned on a message that gave goosebumps because it revealed a future that was far beyond one’s own imagination.  He forced people to think of themselves, of better, of the future as a success for them, and for our nation as having an untapped potential.  He was a visionary par excellence.  But, Christie and Ingraham have failed their teacher.  They have brought our local politics to a five-year plan – shortsighted, easy and small achievements, no large plan that transcends generations and that causes for a transformation in our thinking and our individual approaches.  And as a result, the country and her people are stagnated in a fixed circle of small and meaningless achievements and potential and we are being dragged down a road of a hopeless and less rewarding future.

What is now needed is leadership on ideas

The Bahamas is at the stage that we require a new league of leaders.  Where are the Lynden Pindlings, Arthur Hannas and men like Arthur Foulkes and Stafford Sands (yes I called his name) of this century and time?  Where are the men of vision who are prepared to try new things and prepared to think big?  Where are the thinkers, the dreamers?

I believe that there is an abundance of talented and visionary (should I say young) leaders in this country.  But they are shy of the profound silliness that occurs in the political process.  They do not propose to worship mediocre leaders who are frightened to recognize that their time has come and gone.  They too are not so naive to believe that the presence of one of them on the stage signals a dramatic change in our politics.  They are convinced that far too many Bahamians do not wish to be ‘saved’ from the idiosyncrasies of a political system that favors and graduates the corrupt and the fool.  So, they retreat to a solemn place of thinking, analysis and private conversations where their frustrations are felt in every word and their passion for a better future is unmatched and unsurpassed by anyone in elected office.

There should be a recognition that we need them now; that they must step forth and be the promoters of ideas and of sound thinking.  Our country’s current path mandates that they step forth with boldness and with a passion to serve the people, not a political party or an undeserving and ill-prepared leader, but the people.  But then they look in the mirror and see a face of discontent and of a hypocrisy that they once criticized.  And then they realize their presence whilst critical will not change the current dispensation because there are far too many ‘unbelievers’ on the stage who demand prominence and in whose hands lay the guided trust of the same undeserving leader, and so they smartly retreat.

So, the question remains where are our new visionary leaders?

I am sure that it is a matter of choice.  Do you step forth and be a part of the push towards a sensible solution for the national good even if it means that your voice will stand alone?  Or do you play a role outside of politics to compel those in office to recognize that they are not ‘gods’ but servants of the people who are subject to public criticism and scrutiny?  They must follow the path that will be true to the Bahamian people and that will lead to a more fair and just nation.  This means that there must be a willingness by all Bahamians to openly speak about our future and to chart a course that guarantees our collective and national development towards a future that is progressive and prosperous for the vast majority of Bahamians; not just the white Bay Street or the small black elite.

Our course must be to deepen our economic opportunities to ensure that there are no glass ceilings and an economic elevator that goes freely to all floors landing some on paths of surpassed economic expectations and that allows others to flow to the top based on their commitment to hard work, creativity, non-discriminatory access to capital and a nation that rewards its best and brightest.

These are not easy goals, yet they are all attainable if we work together to craft a national resolve to discipline, hard work and industry.  The standards of mediocrity must be buried and in its place must shine a national call to sacrifice, to ‘We-ism’ and a unified commitment to pursue a vision, and its clearly defined course, that provides a better future for our people.  This is hard work.  But we must pursue it to fulfill the hopes, vision and the expectations of our forefathers and foremothers.

Pindling, like Martin Luther King Jr. who dreamed of a better America, dreamed of a better Bahamas for all Bahamians.  In his lifetime, he achieved much for his people and he lived long enough to know that we still had much ‘land to possess’.  If he was alive I am sure that he would be demanding a return to national excellence and would be exhorting all of us to not rest on our laurels but to continue to uphold the old Bahamian traditions of sacrifice and hard work.  For me, Pindling remains an inspiration for what can be achieved with great and visionary leadership, called and inspired by God.

I remain hopeful that this present course that we are on will end when the two leaders of the FNM and the PLP will look in the mirror and say to themselves ‘I have done my part, time for me to leave this office and pass the baton to those who are ready to lead and to usher in a new era of great and visionary leadership’.  I often wonder if they ever look into the mirror and hear loud voices ringing in their heads, not cries of exhortations but of despair and a dying hope.  Perhaps we should stand in their paths with our individual mirrors so that they can hear our loud voices, so that they can do what honorable men are expected to do in such times of crisis and national yearning.

My mirror is always in my pocket waiting and hoping for that moment when I will see them so that the process can begin of bringing about a new era of our politics, one based on vision, a progressive agenda and leadership of substance over style, dance moves and empty rhetoric.  Where is your mirror?  Is it ready for a generational change in our nation’s leadership?  I hope so.  This boat is sinking.

Writer’s Note: It is a fact that in the PLP cabinet of 2002 to 2007, no minister was under the age of 40 years.  The same cannot be true of other administrations after Independence, including that of Ingraham.   There were three PLP cabinet ministers in the PLP government in 2002 who were under the age of 45 in 2002 at the time of their appointment.  This corrects an error that appeared in Part I.

Raynard Rigby is a practicing attorney-at-law and he is a former national chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (Nov. 2002-Feb. 2008).  He is the author of “A Blueprint for the Future of The Bahamas” (July, 2008) and “The Urgency for Change in the PLP” (2009).  He remains an avid commentator on matters of national interest and importance.

Nov 21, 2011

The current state of Bahamian politics and suggestions for what is required for the future political and socio-economic development of The Bahamas and the Bahamian people (Part-1)

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International