...is there any hope of revolution in The Bahamas?

What can we learn from Haiti and Egypt?
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net



"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist, satirist.

I found this quote on the e-mail signature of Philip "Brave" Davis, deputy leader of the Progressive Liberal Party. Tribune editor in chief, Paco Nunez, once used the same quote as his e-mail signature.

I thought it unsurprising in the latter instance since Mr Nunez also has on his desk a quote from another American journalist, satirist H.L. Mencken that says a journalist is to a politician as a dog is to a lamp-post. But on Mr Davis' signature, I thought it was a classic case of something hidden in plain sight.

Like this timeless quote, Egypt this month lifted the veil on a fundamental nature of politics: it is dirty and deceptive; it is stubborn and it is life altering. What we also saw was an example of what is possible when people awaken, when they are slapped into consciousness and demand accountability from the public masqueraders.

Some Bahamians have already been swept up in the Egyptian revolutionary euphoria, but less their nobleness and naivety lead them astray, they should know, it takes a lot more than rhetoric to make a revolution.

As the Egyptian story unfolded over the past few days and weeks, there was something eerily familiar about the plot. That is because Egypt faced a test that Haiti last took in 2004, and we invigilated it from across the waters. How well Haiti passed is still up for debate, and as the dust settles on the Egyptian streets their results are being tallied.

Both stories, as well as the "pro-democracy movement" that is rippling across the Middle East, have lessons to teach us, about the nature of our politics and our people.

Government

The Indonesian people, who themselves are familiar with people's revolution responded to Egypt's news with cautious jubilation, advising the Egyptian people that the hard part had only just began. Revolution is a temporary moment. It is the gust of wind represented by the hurricane, and its seasonal occurrence is nowhere near as sure or firm. Egyptians now have the task of reconstructing a government and giving birth to the national dream.

Democracy is hard work and revolution does not guarantee evolution. Revolution is a critical spark, particularly needed to achieve quantum leaps, but it is unstable and it is transitory. Evolution is the process of growth and development in all things as they transition through the cycles of life and death.

The world wishes Egyptians well as they strive towards their highest ideal. They will need our best wishes and much more. Given history, and the nature of politics, success is a Sisyphean task, and no modern democracy has accomplished it successfully yet. Really: where in the world has democracy truly given birth to the national dream?

The truth is we live in an unsustainable way that is in direct conflict with our very desire for success, whether it is measured by democracy, freedom for all, the end of hunger and poverty, national unity, justice, racial equality, social equity, peace and stability, the pursuit of happiness, independence, whatever the dream.

Yet we must trod on in faith and do our best. Egypt showed us that people are capable, and sometimes driven, to exerting their people power to bring about a revolution. However, most times political electorates are like blind sheep being shepherded and the political directorate is like an abusive lover. In their natural state, and even after a revolution when the dust settles, people most often find themselves beholden to their leaders and powerless in the evolutionary process of governance and nation building.

Politicians

Last week I heard Fred Mitchell, Fox Hill Member of Parliament ask a group of supporters, how we would get young people like Andre Rollins, PLP freshman, National Development Party absconder, their "Egypt moment." That was not surprising to hear, politicians are notorious band-wagonists. But what of this "Egypt moment": what does Egypt and Haiti have to teach us?

First of all, people are rightly amused when they hear politicians talk about revolution. Egypt teaches us that the nature of a true people's revolution is that it is not given to the people. The people make and take the power. In the midst of the revolution political leaders are made virtually irrelevant.

The popular uprising in Egypt was not led by its political opposition. It was a youth movement, wielding people power. This made it infinitely more difficult for a negotiated solution to have emerged, because such a movement has no allegiance to the establishment and little respect for any authority, but its own vision of democracy and freedom. It was not surprising that the people refused to negotiate with President Mubarak. There was no trust in his authority.

Ironically, the military turned out to be the only institution that held public confidence. And it is the military now tasked with the responsibility of bringing about democratic reform, until constitutionally mandated elections are held.

Despite our faith in the electoral process and representational politics, political leadership is no substitute for people power or military power for that matter. We would definitely be telling a different story today if the popular uprising witnessed in Egypt was a movement born of the political opposition. Our next door neighbour Haiti shows us why.

In 2004 a CARICOM team, of which the Bahamas was a party, travelled to Haiti to meet with political actors and help negotiate a resolution to the political unrest threatening the country's stability. During the 2004 protest movement there were calls for President Jean Bertrand Aristide's resignation.

Supporters

Joshua Sears, director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said there was a stand off between opposition forces, who "decided Aristide had to go", and supporters wanting the constitutional process to be respected. President Aristide's term was to expire in 13 months.

"They couldn't wait 13 months; they wanted to kick him out. The situation had reached a point where the violence had increased; instability had overwhelmed institutions; there was a social breakdown of law and order. If the parties don't agree there is no chance of any kind of abatement of the violence and for the constitutional process to be respected," said Mr Sears.

Insight into the backdoor dealings raises so many questions about the uprising that threatened the nation's stability and the stability of those with interests. What really happened in Haiti seven years ago? Was it a true people's revolution? Was it a controlled opposition? Was it a political mob that had passed its breaking point?

Egypt showed us a modern day example of a true people's revolution. Haiti brewed a different stew: there were too many sticky political fingers in the pot. I am inclined to think, in the case of Haiti, the decisions made by the various political actors served political and economic ends more than the interests of the people. The three most often do not coincide.

I could be challenged that the uprising was not a true people's revolution, but here is why it feels right.

Political leaders make decisions based on their desire to win political competitions, most notably in the form of elections. Competition is the foundation of modern democracy, and the rules of politics are the same as the rules of a capitalist enterprise. It is a dog eat dog world and it literally is a fight to the top.

Why do you think the Free National Movement and the PLP when they have their political hats on are always fighting? Look at the rhetoric they use, the tactics they employ: the mass of supporters who turn out to political rallies appear as an unruly mob ready to go to war.

These people are beholden to their collective political identities for a number of reasons: pure intent, historical obligation, familial connection, miseducation, ignorance, and selfish interests. Politicians take advantage of them regardless of the reason, because the thing about politics is; the leadership has to be in control. They have to maintain the ability to manoeuvre the mob. So a popular uprising with loyalty to political leaders is in fact a controllable entity.

Naturally there is a breaking point for this type of opposition movement. It is kept in check by the nature and intent of its leaders and most times we can count on our leaders to use their power for the greater good of the few people they can't fully control, in other words affluent people or those with perceived influence.

Based on the nature of politics, I am inclined to believe Haiti's 2004 uprising was a political opposition capable of being led; that good men chose to do nothing allowing evil to prevail. Unlike President Mubarak who eventually caved to the will of the people and stepped down, President Aristide refused to be moved short of being kidnapped, which he said he was.

President Mubarak had seven months left on his term; Aristide had 13. In the case of Egypt, I am certain the people would have asked themselves: why should we respect the constitutional process, which should serve the will of the people, and wait seven months for an election, when for decades Mubarak has governed with little respect for the constitution or the people?

Somehow, President Mubarak must have been convinced that the protest movement was no small fraction or fringe group. It was an honest representation of the people's will. I would imagine President Aristide did not have those same feelings.

Still, President Aristide had many choices that could have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional process and respect for the will of the people. President Aristide insisted he serve out his term, as President Mubarak originally wished to do; he could have chosen to stepped down immediately as President Mubarak stalled in doing.

Unlike Mubarak, who had no choice of running in the next election because the public's trust was so corroded, President Aristide could have stepped downed voluntarily and offered himself again in the next election. A win that time around would have decidedly silenced the critics. He could also have asked to stay, but chosen to call an early election.

Power

Colin Powell once intimated that President Aristide had become arrogant and unreasonable with his allies, and probably his people, which endeared him to neither. I would not venture as far as to compare him with President Mubarak, but I am inclined to believe Aristide had on his mind holding power at all cost for the sake of his personal pride and dignity.

President Mubarak has demonstrated that while history will mark his inglorious departure as a personal failure, it will write an inspiring story of his country. Egypt, a Muslim land, is without a doubt the new beacon of hope for freedom. Egypt's final colonizers still govern its lands, but get this: the beacon of light has returned to Africa.

Haiti in 2004 had no such story to tell. With American and French fingers deep in the pot, and Caribbean interests contending for influence, Haiti had its internal politics to deal with and its external politics. Stability was more important than democracy for the Bahamian government, as well as the French and American governments. Instability would mean a migration influx for the Bahamas, and economic losses for the Americans and French.

So what happened? Aristide somehow ended up on an American government jet headed to the Central African Republic. Aristide's' ouster was the lowest common denominator of agreement between the greatest number of influential forces: external interests and the internal political opposition. One could say the people never determined Aristide's fate: their revolution was hijacked.

President Aristide went to Jamaica from the Central African Republic and then on to South Africa, where he was granted asylum. We will never know if he was really kidnapped by the United States or if he left voluntarily. I think it is probable he was pressured under the threat of being otherwise killed.

At the end of the day, our best hope for knowing what really happened is probably Wikileaks. Short of that it will be a perpetual, he said she said game between self-interested parties. What we do know is that President Aristide's stronghold was proven to be untenable, and his departure did not lead to national solidarity.

This brings us back to my starting point: politics is dirty, deceptive, stubborn and life altering. So much is placed in the hands of our political directorate, but in the midst of their game playing, their manoeuvring of economic interests, we can never be sure if they really do right by us. And yet we give them chance after chance after chance, never stopping to think that the usefulness of a politician has an expiry date.

Do our leaders do their best to make a positive impact in our lives or do they just do enough to stay in the game? Are they morally, spiritually or intellectually capable of knowing the difference?

These are questions for all of us to contemplate, because the actions and inaction of our leaders can change the course of history. The whole world felt the impact of America's warmongering President George W Bush.

There is no doubt, the political instability in Haiti has robbed its people of so many opportunities. For all of its natural wealth, the financial resources of its wealthy elite, its strong intellectual foundations, rich cultural heritage and prized historical legacy, Haiti should want for nothing.

Unfortunately this is not the case. And the turbulent conditions in Haiti combined with our own political game playing have thwarted attempts at building a meaningful relationship between next door neighbours.

I imagine there is some genuine interest, but as Mr Sears explained, it is not an easy road. The repeated interruption of democratic rule over the years has made relationship building, for example, a tightrope to walk.

"In one of the negotiations we had, I think it was with Jean-Robert Estimé, foreign affairs minister, when he left, two weeks later he was out of office. In fact, once we had to deal with six to seven foreign ministers in the space of four years; it was not easy," said Mr Sears.

Leader

Regime change, at almost any cost, has been ingrained in the way "they solve their problems," said Mr Sears. Virtually every political leader is dead or outside the country.

"These are intelligent people. They know continued instability is the consequence of unilateral interruptions of the democratic process. You never give the country a chance for those issues to be set aside. That is a dangerous phenomenon we have witnessed," he said.

With all the lessons we have to learn from Egypt, Haiti and global politics is there any hope of revolution in the Bahamas? I think the odds are against us and the status quo will be our accepted condition for some time to come.

After all, we recently had an Egypt opportunity, to use the phrase loosely, and we squandered it. I think it can be summed up in the story of the day the Prime Minister was driven from the House of Assembly burning tyres with no seatbelt on.

Barring the mass rally, the biggest demonstration of BTC unions was their march to Parliament Square. That was the day Parliament ended early; members of the governing party went fleeing and members of the opposition jumped on the bandwagon.

The actions of our leaders was predictable, but that day I watched in astonishment as the people cowered to the might of the state on two fronts. The people amassed in Parliament Square on the street to the west and on the bleachers to the north. They were cordoned off by police barricades and police officers. At one time, the frontliners made a move to push through the barricades and march to the House. They were successful, to a point.

When the "revolution" started, half of the people fled to the bleachers; they held their position in the comfort of their distance; they divided the opposition. Those were no Egyptian revolutionaries. The efforts of the frontliners was so concerted that had the people stuck together, they would have surly overpowered the flimsy cohort of police and made it to the House.

Sadly, they succeeded only in pushing through to the middle of the road. What they demonstrated was their lack of conviction and their powerlessness. A union member who had broken through the barricades, said: "They have y'all corralled like a bunch of animals. That is how they have you. Y'all look like a bunch of animals." It was true. The police knew this, and they also knew how incensory it would be if the people realized, so they told the protester to "stop that". They had their greatest momentum that day and they broke.

In Egypt the people were prepared to die for their cause and many of them did. Those who survived stepped into the shoes of the dead without hesitation: themselves prepared to go all the way. There was no shortage of conviction or cohesiveness.

The other telling incident that day had to do with union's action to the PLP opposition. When the House of Assembly was adjourned, PLP members of parliament congregated at the site of the demonstration. They did not cross the barricades to join the union members; instead, they hijacked the moment. They assembled their own impromptu press conference by the south side bleachers and sidelined the unions and all their members to put on their own show. Of course the media spotlight shifted to them, and after all of the sound bites and video footage was collected the PLP left. Again, that was expected.

Unions

The unions, they tried sheepishly to compete for the spotlight, shouting over their bullhorns to the corralled mass of sorts.

People tend to forget: the government is comprised of the ruling party and the opposition.

After all, an ineffective opposition makes for an ineffective government.

The PLP opposition is no real friend to the unions and they should have told them so.

Some of the present union leaders admit; had they been in power under the PLP administration, they would have opposed their "bad Blue Water deal" back then as well. But the unions allowed their movement to be hijacked on that day. Egyptian revolutionaries they are not.

In the weeks and months ahead, the world will see what Egypt makes of its revolutionary moment. In the meantime, I am sure, politicians and wannabe revolutionaries across the world will continue with their trite use of the Egyptian moment to further their personal objectives. The true revolutionaries, hopefully, will look beyond the rhetorical gimmicks for the real lessons of Egypt, Haiti and all of the movements, past and present.

February 21, 2011

tribune242 insight

Bahamas Blog International