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

It is regrettable that a Bahamian national hero like William “Bill” Cartwright - the originator of the idea of party politics in The Bahamas... and a founder of the nation’s first major political party in 1953 - the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) - is not more fully recognized during their lifetime... ...Despite this repeated notion, we too often fail to live up to our words about recognizing and appreciating those who so generously contributed to nation-building

Honoring William ‘Bill’ Cartwright

thenassauguardian editorial

We mourn the passing of William “Bill” Cartwright, who though little known by many Bahamians today was a consequential figure in the life of the modern Bahamas.  We offer our condolences to his family.

William Cartwright was involved in various aspects of Bahamian life, including as the publisher of a magazine that enjoyed some success. We salute him for his contributions to the print media.

For those who are often tempted to use politicians as scapegoats for our collective national failures, we note that a national hero like Mr. Cartwright was a politician. Those who speak often of honoring our national heroes should remember that many of them made their contributions through politics and government.

Indeed, William Cartwright was a founder of the nation’s first major political party in 1953.  Along with the late Cyril Stevenson and the late Sir Henry Taylor, he helped to found the Progressive Liberal Party.  He served for a time as a representative in the House of Assembly for Cat Island.

Though his role in the PLP waned, he will go down in Bahamian history as the originator of the idea of party politics. This was a major advancement in our democratic experience.

It was through party politics that majority rule and independence were achieved. It was through party politics that democracy was secured. It was through party politics that we became a vibrant stable democracy.

Some months back, we ran a story on the visit of Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes to Bill Cartwright to celebrate the latter’s birthday.  As founders of our modern Bahamas, these men remember well the sacrifices made in the struggle for racial, social and economic justice.

What concerns us is how increasingly fewer people appreciate this history.  It is incumbent on the press and others to more fully tell the story of men such as William Cartwright.

It is also incumbent on public officials to ensure greater appreciation for the nation’s founders as well as others who make significant contributions to national life and development.

The naming of public buildings in honor of such individuals is a welcome and important aspect of such appreciation. So, too will be the mounting of permanent and temporary exhibits in the eventual opening of a national museum.

Additionally, it would be good to record through audiovisual media the voices and images of historic figures.  Some of this is done through current television programs.  But we need a more extensive record by those trained in areas like history and various social sciences.

It is regrettable that individuals like Mr. Cartwright are not more fully recognized during their lifetime.  Despite this repeated notion, we too often fail to live up to our words about recognizing and appreciating those who so generously contributed to nation-building.

It is a sign of ingratitude that we have not been as fulsome in our praise and recognition of citizens like William “Bill” Cartwright.

While a state-recognized funeral is welcome for Mr. Cartwright, when will we stop making speeches about honoring such individuals during their lifetime, and actually start doing so more fully.

In this we all share some blame and the responsibility to do better. A man like William “Bill” Cartwright and others deserve much better.

Jun 08, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

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

Money in Bahamian politics: ...There is no campaign finance legislation in The Bahamas ...and we submit that the time has come to consider changing this...

Financing political campaigns

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

Elections are more often bought than won.

– U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton

 

As the general election in The Bahamas approaches, there has been considerable discussion about the sources of political campaign finance.  One of the local tabloids has suggested that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is being funded by “unsavory characters”.  At one of the Free National Movement  (FNM) rallies, the prime minister is quoted as saying: “The PLP has plenty money!  And there is a reason they have plenty money.  The money they’ve got, we don’t want!  We’d rather be out than in if we have to use that kind of money!  Our hands are clean!”

Therefore this week, we would like to Consider This... should we be concerned where political parties receive their campaign contributions?

Campaign finance refers to funds that are raised and spent to promote candidates and political parties in election contests.  In modern democracies, such funds are not necessarily devoted exclusively to election campaigns. Political contributions are also used to finance issue campaigns in referenda, party activities and party organizations.

For the most part, however, in The Bahamas, political campaign finance is used to establish campaign headquarters at the constituency and national levels, to purchase party paraphernalia, including signage, pins, and flyers, to pay political consultants for polling and focus group activities, party manifestos, newspaper, radio and television commercials, constituency activities, travel to the Family Islands and for political rallies and concerts.

And, yes, political campaign finance is also used to purchase votes.  Although this is illegal, vote buying has been a feature of our political culture long before the establishment of the first political party in 1953.

Reasons for giving

There are many reasons why persons contribute to political campaigns.  The first and most obvious reason is that donors support the political positions, programs or personalities of one party over another and want to see that candidate and party win in order to implement those policies and programs.  In many cases, the donor’s intentions are noble and sincere and contribute to the strengthening of the democratic process.

Another reason for making a political contribution to a particular candidate or a party is to ingratiate oneself to both, in case the candidate or his party wins the election.  The donor then hopes to be able to obtain support for his personal, business or civic programs.

There is also wide public perception that some donors expect government favors in return, such as specific legislation being enacted or defeated, the awarding of significant government contracts or other benefits granted as a result of large campaign contributions; so some have come to equate campaign finance with political corruption and bribery.

Financial contributors

So then, does it really matter who finances political campaigns in The Bahamas?  The short answer is yes.  If political parties expect to be taken seriously, significant contributors must be closely scrutinized in order to determine whether the acceptance of their contributions will adversely affect the voters’ perceptions.  Let’s look at several examples.

Much has been made about lawyers who defend clients who are accused of criminal offenses.  The suggestion is that if a candidate is to be taken seriously by the voter, he should not represent persons so accused.  There is an even more pernicious suggestion that lawyers who do so are undesirable candidates for Parliament.  We totally disagree.

We are a country that is governed by the rule of law, whose primary precept is that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a candidate representing such persons, even in cases where the accused are awaiting an extradition hearing. Let us remember that there was no similar public outcry when Eugene Dupuch and Sir Orville Turnquest successfully represented Robert Vesco, the internationally renowned financial fugitive, when the United States sought his extradition.  In fact, Sir Orville subsequently enjoyed an illustrious and distinguished career as a Cabinet minister and deputy prime minister and then ultimately as governor general of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

Even more has been made of candidates accepting donations from such individuals.  Keeping in mind the innocent until proven guilty concept, we see nothing untoward about taking donations from such accused individuals, nor do we see anything inappropriate about accepting donations from individuals who have been acquitted of the charges against them.  They were presumed innocent and proven to be innocent, therefore donations from such persons are just like those from people who have never had a brush with the law.  Of course, if the contributor was actually convicted of an offense, then it would be imprudent for such contributions to be accepted.  Far too often in this society we do not appreciate the difference.

A second example involves a completely legitimate, clinically-clean contributor who makes a substantial contribution with the clear understanding that, if elected, the winner would ensure that certain actions are taken or favors granted for the contributor’s benefit.  Notwithstanding that contributor being above reproach, such an arrangement is equivalent to bribery and corruption.

Accordingly, the real test of the appropriateness of the contribution must be the legal standing as well as the intention of the contributor and an understanding of the motivation of such contributions.

Campaign finance laws

Most countries that rely on private donations to fund campaigns require extensive disclosure, including the name, employer and address of donors.  This is intended to police undue donor influence, while preserving most of the benefits of private financing, including the right to make donations and to spend money to enhance political free speech, saving government the expense of funding campaigns and keeping government from funding partisan free speech, which some citizens would find odious.

Supporters of private financing systems believe that private financing fosters civic involvement, ensures that a diversity of views are heard, and prevents government from tilting the scales to favor those in power or with political influence.  They also encourage enhanced transparency in the funding of candidates and the political parties.

There is no campaign finance legislation in The Bahamas and we submit that the time has come to consider changing this.  We believe that the correct balance of political finance impacts a country’s ability to effectively maintain free and fair elections, effective governance, democratic government and the regulation of corruption.

Conclusion

Political campaign finance can affect various societal institutions.  We fully recognize that money is necessary for democratic politics, and that candidates and political parties must have access to funds to play their part in the political process.  Money is never an unproblematic part of the political system, and, therefore, regulation of this process is highly desirable.

We also believe that our political culture must be taken into account when devising strategies for controlling money in politics in Bahamian elections.  Ultimately, the effective regulation and disclosure of political campaign finance can help to control the adverse effects of the role of money in politics, but only if well-conceived and implemented.  Without those proper regulations, our democratic process is in danger, and the pirates might just have to be expelled once more.

 

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

Mar 05, 2012

thenassauguardian

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

This year in Bahamian politics - 2011: ... and in 2012... crime, the economy, the New Providence roadworks and leadership are likely to be the major issues debated during the general election campaign... The Bahamian electorate will decide if they want Perry Christie, Hubert Ingraham or Branville McCartney — that is, if a clear winner is chosen

An intriguing year in politics

Year in review 2011

By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com

This year in politics has been a preparation for the year to come.  Next year men who have dedicated their lives to politics are preparing to fight for power, likely for the last time.

Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie, leaders of the Free National Movement (FNM) and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) respectively, are the main contenders.  Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) are making their first appearance.

In 2011, each political leader was faced with internal upset.  Sitting parliamentarians, potential candidates and political wannabes all expressed anger in the public sphere when it became evident that the end had come to their ambitions or careers.

A minister is fired

Kenneth Russell, MP for High Rock and former housing minister, sat next to Hubert Ingraham in the House of Assembly.  Up until November, he rigorously defended Ingraham, his leader, and the policies of his administration.

Then in December, that bond between the men was broken with Russell publicly calling Ingraham a ‘tyrant’ and a ‘dictator’ after being fired from Ingraham’s Cabinet.

“I worked with him a long time and this is the first time I have seen this negative side of him,” said Russell on December 9, the day he was fired.

“The prime minister was my friend.  In fact, we are related.  The same aunties and uncles he has in Cooper’s Town (Abaco), so do I.

“I don’t know why he turned this way, but I have no problem with it; it’s his choice to make.  Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, the Lord is always with me.  And even though Ingraham would attempt to slay me, I still love him.”

Ingraham indicated Russell was fired for inappropriately discussing Cabinet business — a project for Grand Bahama that was rejected by Cabinet.  However, some political observers think Russell’s termination resulted from Ingraham’s desire not to run him in the next election and his public complaints about that decision.

Whatever the reason, Russell ends 2011 an outsider.  He will not be a candidate for Ingraham’s FNM.

Opposition party upset

Christie and McCartney had their share of public break-ups too over nominations.

In June, then PLP treasurer Craig Butler resigned his post and left the party because he could not secure a PLP nomination.

Butler sought the party nomination in the February 2010 Elizabeth by-election.  He was rejected.  He then tried for the PLP nomination for the old Kennedy constituency.  He was rejected again.

Butler has admitted past drug use.  The PLP, a party that has had to wrestle with embarrassing scandals in the past, would not budge on its opposition to Butler’s candidacy under its banner.  Butler has vowed to run as an independent.

While Butler left the party because he could not get a nomination, a former PLP colleague of his was forced to announce he would not run in the general election.

Vincent Peet, the North Andros and Berry Islands MP, on December 20 bowed out after an issue regarding $180,000 in client funds was made public in a series of Nassau Guardian stories.

“After much prayerful deliberation and after much consultation with constituents, colleagues, family and friends, including the esteemed leader of my party, Perry Christie, I have decided not to stand for re-election in the forthcoming general election,” Peet said in a statement.

“My decision in this regard is final and irreversible and I have informed my leader and the relevant councils of my party accordingly.  At this particular juncture of my life, I need to concentrate my attention and energy on my legal practice.”

Dr. Perry Gomez is to take Peet’s place as the PLP’s North Andros candidate.

DNA disputes

McCartney’s party revoked the nominations of two candidates, it said, for non-performance.

Former High Rock candidate Philip Thomas and former South Beach candidate Sammie Poitier, also known as Sammi Starr, were out at the end of November.

However, McCartney and Thomas gave different reasons as to why Thomas is no longer the candidate for High Rock.

Thomas claimed he was kicked out for disagreeing with McCartney, while McCartney claimed Thomas was not living up to the commitment he made to the party.

On December 5, McCartney denied reports that his party was falling apart after the break-up with Thomas and Poitier.

“It’s not falling apart at all; it’s growing every day and getting stronger and stronger,” he said.

“We’ve been in existence for six months, we’ve made history in six months and we have become a major party within a six-month period.”

Is the DNA real?

McCartney faced these political issues at year’s end.  His DNA party was launched May 12.  At his launch event at the Wyndham Nassau Resort on Cable Beach he called on Bahamians to “redefine the possible”.

“I truly believe that you are not here simply because you have nothing better to do, but because you believe that change is necessary, and you know, like I know, that our country is not the country we envisioned it to be,” he said.

McCartney hopes to take advantage of perceived dissatisfaction with the PLP and FNM.

In 2002, with Ingraham as leader and Tommy Turnquest as leader-elect, the FNM lost by a landslide margin to the PLP.  In 2007, with a growing economy, Christie’s PLP lost to the Ingraham-led FNM.  In 2012, Ingraham and Christie plan to return to the electorate as the leaders of their respective parties.

They present themselves at a time when the country has set four murder records in five years and the unemployment rate is above 13 percent.

McCartney thinks the Bahamian people now want a change.

Even if this is true, Bahamians are conservative voters.  Dr. Bernard Nottage was the leader of the Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR) in 2002.  He was the sitting Member of Parliament for Kennedy at the time, having left the PLP.  In that election Dr. Nottage’s party only won two percent of the vote and he lost his seat.

History is not on McCartney’s side.

The stakes are high for the leaders

Ingraham and Christie have been at it, politically, for quite a while.  Both have been MPs since 1977.  Both were young ministers in Sir Lynden Pindling’s Cabinet.  Both served as leader of the opposition and as prime minister.

Christie will be 69 next year.  Ingraham will be 65.  These friends and adversaries have become so powerful in their respective parties that neither could be moved internally.  But, the years have taken their toll and most observers think that this is the last race for the historic duo — the winner becoming prime minister again and the loser going in to retirement.

For McCartney, the stakes are also high.  If his DNA does poorly and he loses his seat in the House, a promising career could be over.

Crime, the economy, the New Providence roadworks and leadership are likely to be the major issues debated during the campaign.  The voters will decide if they want Christie, Ingraham or McCartney — that is, if a clear winner is chosen.

The 2007 general election was decided by fewer than 4,000 votes and the 2010 Elizabeth by-election by only three votes after a court case.  The country has remained divided from the last general election and a third party makes the race more unpredictable.

If Ingraham wins again his political success will debatably rival his mentor Sir Lynden Pindling.  If Christie wins he would be able to complete an agenda he thinks was pulled from him too soon.  If McCartney wins, even just a few seats, Bahamian politics would change forever.

With 38 seats in play –—the boundaries commission cut the constituency number to the constitutional minimum — this battle will play out seat by seat in community after community.  As it should be, the people will decide the fates of these leaders and their parties.

Dec 28, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The marriage of politics and crime in The Bahamas is a long standing one shrouded in silence

Gangster’s Paradise Part 1

By Ian G. Strachan

Crime and the political class

There is no greater problem facing The Bahamas, as far as the average Bahamian is concerned, than violent crime.  Unfortunately, violent crime is itself merely a manifestation, a symptom of deeper problems, troubling weaknesses in our systems, institutions, communities, families, psyches.  Some of the weaknesses are beyond our control – such as our size, our geographical fragmentation and proximity to the largest consumer society in the world.  Others exist because of our own neglect, incompetence, complicity, fear and ignorance.

It seems sometimes as if we want with all our hearts to do away with the shameful symptoms of our disease: Murder, rape, armed robbery, as if these were ugly, painful lesions on a pretty face, but we have no matching zeal to cure ourselves of the disease that lurks deep within, creating these conspicuous eruptions.

Over the next few weeks we will explore the vexing matter of crime in The Bahamas.  We will try to be guided by the research and considered thoughts of those who have already dedicated time and effort to these problems (because I have no interest in re-inventing the wheel).

Where we are

First, let us put our current situation in The Bahamas in perspective – regional perspective.  Here, we are alarmed at our murder rate.  I don’t wish to say that the alarm is misplaced, but I’d like to look at the murder rate for a moment as a regional phenomenon.  Where do we stack up?  In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Trinidad and Tobago had 472 murders or 35 per 100,000 people.  The Dominican Republic had 2,472 murders or 24 per 100,000.  St. Lucia had 44 or 25.2 per 100,000.  Puerto Rico had 983 murders or 26 per 100,000.  Jamaica had 1,428 or 52 per 100,000; Dominica 15 or 22 per 100,000 and The Bahamas 96, or 28 per 100,000 people.  (Police now say we only had 94 in 2010.)

The Caribbean nation most like our own demographically and historically, Barbados, had 31 murders in 2010.  By comparison, the U.S. had five murders per 100,000 people, Canada had 1.8 per 100,000 people, Japan and Singapore had 0.5 murders per 100,000 people and Germany 0.8 per 100,000.  You can see then that as a region we are recording very high murder rates compared to the industrialized countries.  In fact, the Caribbean has many of the highest murder rates in the world.  I could not find murder rates higher than The Bahamas’ anywhere outside of the Caribbean, Africa and Latin America.  Before this series is done I shall have discussed that phenomenon with some of our criminologists and sociologists.

Crime is much, much broader than murder, as we know, but murder captures everyone’s attention because it is the most serious, most shocking of crimes.  A 2007 World Bank report on crime and its impact on development in the Caribbean noted that: “The high rates of crime and violence in the region have both direct effects on human welfare in the short-run and longer run effects on economic growth and social development.”

That should sober us.  Crime and violence have deep seated economic impacts.  The report also noted that “the strongest explanation for the relatively high rates of crime and violence rates in the region – and their apparent rise in recent years – is narcotics trafficking.”

The drug trade drives crime in a number of ways: Through violence tied to trafficking, by normalizing illegal behavior, by diverting criminal justice resources from other activities, by provoking property crime related to addiction, by contributing to the widespread availability of firearms, and by undermining and corrupting societal institutions.

Perhaps most importantly, the report warned that in trying to reduce crime, violent crime especially, “There is no one ‘ideal’ approach.  The common denominator is that successful interventions are evidence-based, starting with a clear diagnostic about types of violence and risk factors, and ending with a careful evaluation of the intervention’s impact which will inform future actions.”

Whose side are the legislators on?

Over the next few weeks we’ll discuss a variety of crime fighting strategies available to us in this country.  But I wish to begin by discussing the role lawmakers and aspiring lawmakers have played in sanctioning, enabling and rewarding criminality in this country.  To put it bluntly, our politicians must choose sides: Either they are on the side of those who are accused of committing crimes or they are on the side of the rest of society.  They should no longer be able to have it both ways.  What do I mean?

We have sitting members of our Parliament and men aspiring to sit there, who have represented and continue to represent, accused drug dealers, accused rapists, accused operators of illegal gambling houses, accused murderers.  I distinctly remember interviewing a very accomplished politician once, a man at the center of many of the nation’s most important political events of the last 50 years.  This gentleman boasted to me of the number of accused murderers he had gotten off (it was close to 30 if I recall correctly).  His intention was to convince me of his legal prowess.  Instead I was chilled at the thought that this legislator, this champion of our democratic achievements, had also possibly had a hand in freeing nearly 30 cold-blooded murderers.  Someone’s got to do that job; I understand that.  But I cannot accept that it must be my elected representatives.

I have mentioned on a number of occasions the troubling fact that the Member for Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador, and now deputy leader of the PLP, Philip “Brave” Davis, was the lawyer for the most wanted drug trafficker in this country, Samuel “Ninety” Knowles.  But Davis is not special, nor is he unique.  We simply happen to remember the name of his most famous client.  What about Carl Bethel, Desmond Bannister, Dion Foulkes, Alfred Sears, Glenys Hanna-Martin, Branville McCartney, Damien Gomez, Allyson Maynard-Gibson and Wayne Munroe?  Who have they defended over the course of their careers?  How many people accused of violent crime, or of brazenly flouting our laws, have they defended for a handsome fee?

These men and women will no doubt defend themselves by insisting they are not doing anything that is contrary to the rules of our Westminster system.  They will no doubt ask why they should be singled out and denied a living while physicians, accountants, engineers, businessmen are allowed to conduct their affairs and are subject to no such criticism if they serve or aspire to serve in Parliament.

I believe all MPs should be full time and should not be allowed to work for anybody else while they serve the people, first of all.  But that aside, the practice of law must in my view be treated differently, since the business of the parliamentarian is to create laws.  Doctors make a living making people sick (they’re not supposed to anyway).  But the criminal defense attorney makes a living helping men and women evade punishment who are, in the considered opinion of police, guilty of violent crimes.  I repeat:  Someone’s got to do it.  But if you do, how dare you then ask me to make you attorney general, or minister of this or that, or member of Parliament.  And how dare you give speeches about how you feel for suffering victims.  What kind of country is this?

What is the message you send to the street thug, the murderer, the drug lord, the rapist, the arm marauder, or to the impressionable admirer of such people, or to the victims of such people, when you choose to represent them before the courts and potentially help guilty men escape justice – not just before you run for political office, but while you hold such an office?  Yes, we are all innocent until proven guilty, but with 1,000 lawyers, I think it is safe to say that criminals won’t have too much trouble finding legal representation.

The 41 men and women who sit in the lower house and those who sit in the Senate should be people who have spent their whole careers defending and building us up, not defending and assisting those who are tearing us down.

The marriage of politics and crime

There’s more.  The marriage of politics and crime is a long standing one shrouded in silence.  Remember the 1967 Commission of Inquiry into the connections between organized crime in the U.S., casinos and the Bahamian government?  Remember the 1984 Commission of Inquiry into drug trafficking and governmental corruption?  How many arrests and incarcerations of Bahamian politicians on charges of corruption have occurred in the last 50 years? What has become of the so-called investigation into the handling of Crown Land for instance?

And what connection has existed between politics and the numbers business?  How far back does that connection go?  To the very heyday of the majority rule struggle?  And how many politicians, FNM and PLP, walk the streets campaigning with accused criminals on bail, or ex-cons or men “known to the police”?  Do their services as campaign generals buy them immunity?  Free legal help?  In the fight against crime, we must strike at the root.  Zero tolerance begins in our own house –  the House in Parliament Square.

Oct 24, 2011

Gangster’s Paradise Part 2

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) good approach to politics

A good approach to politics

thenassauguardian editorial

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA), or the green party as it is called by some, is hosting yet another town hall meeting Wednesday.  This one will be on the topic of education.  The party has previously held town hall meetings on crime and immigration.

The new party should keep it up.  Town hall meetings are a bit more intellectually involved than Bahamian political rallies.  At these meetings there is a topic, the audience is more sober and seated and there is a speaker.  The audience then gets to ask questions – not all of which are friendly.

The give and take of the town hall meeting means that politicians have to be prepared for challenges. Rally goers are different as compared to those who would prefer to go to a town hall meeting.

Rallies are glorified parties in The Bahamas these days.  A good part of the audience is intoxicated and waiting to be entertained by speakers who provide much noise and little substance.  And as those rally speakers deliver their empty lines, loud music is usually played.  This makes it clear to those assembled that the main purpose of the event is not to listen, but to have a good time.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM) love rallies.  The new party would do well to continue to appeal to the mind.  The Bahamas has serious problems.

Our largest private sector employer, Atlantis, is in debt restructuring negotiations in order to avoid default and foreclosure; there will be a fourth homicide record in five years this year; our economy has been weak and unemployment high since the financial crisis of 2008; the roadwork on New Providence is causing serious movement problems; and several islands are recovering from being directly hit by Hurricane Irene.

In this context, we do not need ‘rally talk’.  We do not need to hear about who did what to his sweetheart or who is weak and who is strong.  We need policy, dialogue and solutions.

At this stage in the history of The Bahamas, we need leaders who are sober and like to think.  We do not need dancers or entertainers who are masters at using rally stages to waste the time of the people.

Bahamians should always engage with politicians when they seek to analyze and discuss issues for the purpose of coming up with good policies.  We should also ignore the frivolous and the silly.  People change dysfunctional culture.

We are nearing the peak of election season in serious times and as a people we must mature politically.  By doing so, we will force the parties to organize more sensible fora such as town hall meetings and debates and fewer drunken parties at the forts and public parks.

Sep 12, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Gangsterism and politics: Bahamian politicians take note of the deadly end result of politics and corruption

Electronic fence needed between gangsterism and politics

tribune242 editorial



ANYONE who has followed the rise and fall of Jamaica's drug kingpin, Christopher "Dudus" Coke, or read KC Samuels' account of Coke's meteoric rise and eventual fall into the arms of a waiting "Uncle Sam", should be grateful that the Bahamas' own drug kingpin, "Ninety" Knowles, was eventually extradited to the US before he had time to consolidate his own growing empire.

By the time Dudus, who was born into a life of crime, had run his course, he was becoming more powerful even than the Jamaican government. However, before his saga is done, what might be revealed during his trial in the US, could well bring down the JLP government of Bruce Golding.

Dudus' father, Jim Brown, who died mysteriously in a fire in his prison cell in Jamaica, was Prime Minister Edward Seaga's man. Brown was a don who could be relied on to deliver the votes from Tivoli Gardens for Seaga's Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Brown headed the Shower Posse and violence and bloodshed entered Jamaican politics. The politicians and hoodlums were too close for comfort right up to last year when "the President" - Dudus himself - challenged the prime minister, who under pressure had agreed his extradition to the US.

The don of Tivoli, who by this time had taken his father's criminal enterprise and built it into an international empire, was receiving all the Jamaican government's construction contracts, as well as collecting from his international drug-dealing enterprises. Over time he had built himself such a strong outpost that by the time the US government targeted him, he had an armed force ready to challenge his arrest. The residents of Tivoli barricaded themselves in to protect their don and opened fire on the forces sent to arrest him. By the time the armed forces had quelled the uprising, 74 Jamaicans, including a police officer, were dead, but Dudus was still on the run.

For more than a month Dudus eluded the authorities. When he was eventually caught, disguised in a woman's wig, he waived his rights and agreed to be extradited to the US to face drugs and weapons charges.

Tivoli Gardens was former prime minister Edward Seaga's stronghold. Seaga took care of the residents. Dudus, taking on his father's mantle as head of the Posse, pushed the prime minister's care and protection of Tivoli residents to a new level.

Dudus had two faces. To the people of Tivoli and all those who paid him homage he was a good man, a generous man, a man without blemish. However, to others he was a gangster, a crook, a drug and gun peddler - a threat to society. The Americans described him as a dangerous narcotics kingpin.

Golding's government fought the extradition request. Golding explained that the attorney general and justice minister had refrained from signing Dudus' extradition because the evidence as outlined by the US was obtained illegally. Eventually an embarrassed Golding, with calls for his resignation echoing in his ears, apologised and signed.

Here in the Bahamas, employing every delaying tactic in the courts, "Ninety" Knowles from his jail cell in Fox Hill prison, held the Americans at bay for six years. President George Bush had personally labeled him an international narcotics kingpin under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpins Designation Act. He was described as the head of a multinational drug organization and in the US was found guilty of drug conspiracy and sentenced to 28 years in a Florida prison. The jury recommended that his US$19.5 million in assets be forfeited to the US government.

However, Knowles' extradition created a furor in Nassau, and even drew out placard-carrying demonstrators when then foreign affairs minister Fred Mitchell signed a warrant of surrender before Knowles had exhausted his legal appeals. The Court of Appeal recorded its "serious concern" at the manner that Knowles had been removed from the Bahamas.

However, legally right or wrong, it was the best decision for the Bahamas. Already Knowles, like Dudus, was building his little empire of supporters. He was generous with his ill-gotten gains, which he distributed liberally among the poor.

According to Wikileaks, a US diplomat wrote in November 2006 that Knowles' extradition would lead to the "withdrawal of an important source of election funding." Yes, Knowles was a menace to society.

But as Samuels concluded in his book "Jamaica's first President - Dudus, 1992-2010" -- "What needs to be realised here even more than anything else, is the deadly end result of politics and corruption. Duduses are a dime a dozen, hundreds have been born since he was extradited. He was not the first and he won't be the last to face such a fate, and therein again is the problem -- because if Jamaica is to move forward as a nation, and his type of behaviour is to be confined to the pages of history, then the line between gangsterism and politics must become an electronic fence."

Bahamian politicians take note.

Friday, June 10, 2011

tribune242 editorial

WikiLeaks, former Acting Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson, Politics and the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF)

Ferguson wanted top cops dismissed

By BRENT DEAN
NG Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com


Cable reveals power struggle in police force


Then Acting Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson in early 2009 told United States Embassy officials that he had recommended to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham as early as November 2007 that all but one of the then assistant commissioners of police be dismissed, including now Commissioner Ellison Greenslade, according to a U.S. embassy diplomatic cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian from WikiLeaks.

The February 2009 confidential cable revealed that the only assistant commissioner Ferguson thought should remain was Marvin Dames. Dames, who was subsequently made deputy commissioner in January 2010, is now leaving the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) to reportedly head the security division at Baha Mar.

According to the cable, Ferguson told embassy officials at that time that he flatly refused to work with Greenslade, “admitting that he had caused Greenslade to be sent to Canada for training.

“Ferguson bluntly stated that he does not favor Greenslade to become the next police commissioner, and said he wished to retain only Dames, whom he clearly favors as a future successor.”

When contacted about the cable, Ferguson said he had no comment.

“The acting commissioner is apparently against Greenslade for supporting an attempt late in the previous Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration to sideline Ferguson through a dead-end appointment to a position at the Police College,” said the cable.

“Ferguson's career prospects improved, however, after the Free National Movement (FNM) won the May 2007 elections (Ferguson’s brother, Johnley, is a high-ranking FNM party official).”

The allegation that Greenslade supported the PLP’s move of Ferguson was not substantiated.

Dames and Ferguson worked closely together for many years when Ferguson was the assistant commissioner with responsibility for crime and Dames was his number two as head of the Central Detective Unit (CDU).

Politics and the force

The constitution of The Bahamas politicizes the appointment of the executive command of the force. The prime minister, through various consultations, essentially appoints all assistant commissioners, the deputy commissioner and the commissioner of police.

In March 2007, shortly before the general election, the Perry Christie administration appointed a large number of new executives in the force.

Greenslade, Ruben Smith, Reginald Ferguson and Allan Gibson were named senior assistant commissioners.

Marvin Dames, Chris McCoy, James Carey, Kirkland Hutchinson, Eugene Cartwright and Juanita Colebrooke were each promoted to the post of assistant commissioner of police. At the time, John Rolle was deputy commissioner and Paul Farquharson was commissioner.

There was controversy when the Christie administration named the large number of assistant commissioners. Traditionally, there were around four to five assistant commissioners. Adding to the controversy was the decision to relegate Ferguson, one of the most senior officers in the force, to head the Police College. This command was usually held by a more junior officer.

There was tension between Reginald Ferguson and the then PLP government. It perceived him as an antagonist and a supporter of the FNM.

Reshaping the force

It is unclear if the moves made in the force were solely or partially made based on Ferguson’s recommendations or not, but nearly all of the assistant commissioners Ferguson reportedly recommended to be replaced were ‘retired’ from the force.

In January 2009, McCoy, Colebrook, Hutchinson, Cartwright and Carey all left the force, along with a group of other senior officers below the rank of assistant commissioner. Gibson and Smith had previously retired as senior assistant commissioners.

Dames and Greenslade, the two main candidates to be the next commissioner of police, had spent much of 2008 training in Canada.

“By sending Greenslade and Dames abroad, the new GCOB (Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas) avoided a potentially divisive succession struggle while developing the leadership capacity of two young up-and-coming officers in line with its drive to modernize the force,” said the embassy in the cable.

“It also avoided an untimely squabble with the new acting commissioner, who desired a free hand in making top appointments and made no secret of his preference for Dames over Greenslade.”

Despite Ferguson’s preference, he was not able to stop the ascent of Greenslade.

In January 2009, when the group of assistant commissioners was retired, Greenslade became the acting deputy commissioner and Dames the senior assistant commissioner responsible for Grand Bahama.

“Ferguson hoped to remain as acting commissioner for several years longer, which would also help him see his favorite, Dames, succeed him. He appeared resigned that it was politically impossible for Greenslade to be removed now,” said the February 2009 cable.

“Ferguson said the reason he was not officially named commissioner while serving for over a year was his refusals to back down from his view that all RBPF assistant commissioners serving when the FNM took office, with the exception of Dames, should be dismissed.

“He added that he doubted that Greenslade would be equally resistant to political pressure. In the end, the GCOB appears to have implemented one of the compromise outcomes floated by Ferguson (including to embassy officials): retaining the current police chief but positioning two possible successors in the next most responsible positions, giving both the opportunity to earn the trust of the force and the public before any successor is named.“

In March, one month after the cable was written, Ferguson was confirmed as commissioner of police. He held the confirmed post for less than a year, however. Greenslade was named commissioner and Ferguson retired in January 2010.

Ferguson was named director of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)after his retirement from the force.

Despite the rivalry in the force during this period, the Americans were pleased with Ferguson, Greenslade and Dames, according to the cable.

“Both Greenslade and Dames are regarded as forward-looking and capable officers with the potential to assume overall command of the police force in the future, despite differing personal styles,” the embassy said.

“Greenslade may have the edge in practical experience and rank-and-file support, having risen through the police ranks, as well as public support due to his success in Grand Bahama during a time when hurricanes ravaged the island. For his part, Ferguson is a respected, no-nonsense official who puts a premium on integrity and often speaks out against corruption ­– accusations of which do not taint him but may stick to others under his command.

“He also has a good relationship and solid track record of professional cooperation with U.S. law enforcement agencies.”

5/30/2011

thenassauguardian

A Message From Branville McCartney - MP - Bamboo Town

A Message From MP McCartney



...That all elected officials may respond to the needs of their community and serve the common good – we pray to the Lord – Lord hear our prayer.


We are so very fortunate to be blessed by God with such a beautiful country and, indeed, for the most part, beautiful, kind, generous and God fearing people. I, just like so many other persons, am convinced that there is no other place in this world like the Bahamas! But what are we doing or not doing to our beloved country? Are we settling for mediocrity and accepting it as the best we have?

Are we letting politics get in the way? I have no doubt that The Bahamas ought to be more than a “Little Switzerland” in the Atlantic, but are we doing our part?

A few weeks ago, while at church, I listened intently to the intercessory prayer – “that all elected officials may respond to the needs of their community and serve the common good – we pray to the Lord – Lord hear our prayer”. This intercessory stuck in my mind and I wondered if our elected officials, including me, respond to the needs of their community. Now I take that to mean the community of the Bahamas and its welfare. For the most part, I think we respond, but in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. In my humble view, I think that we have become so polarized/political/partisan that we lose sight of what is the “common good” of the community; what is indeed the common good of The Bahamas and the Bahamian people. We tend to put PLP and the FNM and their respective colours before the people of the Bahamas. This should not be! We should be at a stage where we have moved beyond petty politics.

Now do not get me wrong, there is a time and a place for politics, but the interest and the welfare of the Bahamian people must be priority number one! I am not sure we, as politicians, appreciate this notion.

In Bamboo Town, my theme colour is the olive green – not red and white,not yellow, but the olive green. That colour signifies that I am extending the olive branch to all members of my constituency, inclusive of – FNMs, PLPs and ABCs. You see, if I were to have the FNM’s colours, the odds are, only the FNMs will participate in the many programs we have in the community. What then happens to those who are not FNM or those who do not vote, perhaps became of religious or other reasons? The idea, put simply, is for ALL to participate! It does not matter to me what political persuasion you are. I am the representative for all and my aim is for the common good. As a result, I have had the good fortune of persons of different political persuasions, and quite pleasantly surprisingly persons who do not participate in the political process for one reason or the other, join and assist in programs that we have in Bamboo Town. That is because we are about community not politics.

I do pray to the Almighty that we do not become like some of our neighbouring countries to the south where violence is the order of the day when it comes to politics. Let us not follow in their footsteps.

In my resignation statement, I said that I fear that we are going in the wrong direction politically. This is what I meant. It is time that we respond to the needs of our respective communities and serve the common good – Lord hear our prayer.

Taken from: REPRESENT!
Your voice in Bamboo Town
Vol. 1 Issue 15
January 2011 Edition

Bahamas Blog International

Branville McCartney support in the Free National Movement (FNM) has collapsed

What was Branville McCartney thinking?
thenassauguardian national review



The headline for this piece is the question that just about everyone has been asking since McCartney made the now famous statement — that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has no compassion.

McCartney, a sitting FNM MP who has made no secret of his leadership aspirations, made the startling statement last week Tuesday during an appearance on Star 106.5 FM’s talk show, “Jeffrey”, hosted by Jeff Lloyd.

This is exactly what McCartney told Lloyd: “At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges. We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people.

“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”

When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.

“The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”

For anyone who doubted the statement or its context reported exclusively by The Nassau Guardian on Wednesday, McCartney repeated his feelings about the Prime Minister and the state of the Free National Movement during an interview with NB12 TV news later that night.

The statement drew a strong response from the public, much like his decision to resign from Ingraham’s Cabinet after serving just under two years as a junior minister in the ministries of tourism and immigration. McCartney thought he was being “underutilized”.

Now a new round of questions surrounding McCartney’s political strategy and his political future hang heavily over the relative newcomer to politics.

Is this the final chapter in McCartney’s political career? Maybe not, but the young politician does not appear to be making any friends in the FNM.

“His (McCartney’s) support in the party has collapsed,” said a well-placed source within the FNM who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the party. “Any residual support he had has collapsed.

“You can’t keep going around lacerating the Prime Minister and the FNM for all the wrong things they are doing, but then say, ‘I support the party’. “It doesn’t make sense.”

PARTY VS. PUBLIC SUPPORT

Those outside the FNM seem similarly confused.

“If Branville is listening to people out there who may be clamoring for him to be the leader of the FNM, the question is are they people who can vote for him at convention. If not, he ought to recognize that it’s not meaningful support,” said Raynard Rigby, a former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.

“If he has support within the FNM he ought to figure out and think through how his open criticism of the leader will factor into the minds of his supporters. You can be popular in the eyes of the public, but party support is what matters if you are interested in a leadership position, and you saw that in the deputy leadership race in the PLP. Obie Wilchcombe was seen as more popular but Brave (Davis) beat him convincingly because he had the support of the party.”

George Smith, a veteran politician who served in the Sir Lynden Pindling administration, suggests that McCartney has failed to do just that — think things through, at least when it came to last week’s statement.

“The statement probably reflects what he is thinking, but he obviously did not weigh it carefully. In politics when you say something that makes you appear bold and courageous you may have to pay a price,” said Smith.

Only time will tell what that price will be, but there are already the obvious suggestions that McCartney may not receive the FNM nomination to run in Bamboo Town as a result of the “no compassion” remark.

“Make no mistake, FNMs have their own problems with Hubert Ingraham, but the party does not like these attacks which are seen as extremely disloyal to the party,” said the FNM source. “He is providing attack lines to the opposition. That’s a serious thing.”

McCartney has said that if he does not get the nomination he would run as an independent or “otherwise”. That “otherwise” is unlikely to be the PLP, given the boost an independent McCartney in Bamboo Town would give to the chances of the opposition winning that seat.

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

Independents, generally, fare very poorly in general elections in The Bahamas, unless they receive the support of a political party that may decide not to run anyone in that seat.

While there have been success stories, such as Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham (Tennyson Wells and Pierre Dupuch to a lesser extent), those men had years and years of experience in office and serving in Cabinet before turning independent, and had been battle-tested.

McCartney has neither the wealth of experience nor the political battle wounds to carry him through the trials of the “political wilderness”, and cast him as a maverick independent.

But what McCartney does appear to have is a certain appeal to a segment of the public that is hungry for a new face to lead the country. “Sick of Ingraham and Scared of Christie” is becoming a mantra among many young professional Bahamians who are openly declaring their intentions of sitting out the next general election.

McCartney is a successful lawyer and a seemingly dedicated and conscientious MP. He has a certain talent for public relations and is good at using technology and social media to connect with young voters. And whatever his critics may say, he is not afraid to publically criticize the government or his party, which in some quarters has been interpreted as ambitious and courageous.

McCartney has also taken a tough stance on two hot button issues in the country — illegal immigration and crime — and while everyone has not always agreed with his approach, his decision to publically state his positions has been generally well-received by the public.

Whether McCartney decides to bide his time in the FNM — although that seems unlikely in light of his recent statements — or become an independent, the road ahead will not be easy.

“When you are in Cabinet you have a level of public persona associated with the position. In the back bench you have to continually redefine who you are politically to maintain a public presence,” said Rigby.

This is a point obviously not lost on McCartney, who since resigning from Cabinet has made a number of headlines, more recently for showing up at a BTC unions anti-privatization rally, and telling reporters that he was undecided on an issue that his party obviously supports.

But if McCartney is to succeed in one of the mainstream political parties, he will have to work on how his actions and statements are being interpreted by those who make the decisions in those parties — the more experienced politicians who in this political climate call the shots.

AMBITION OR ARROGANCE

What some have interpreted as ambition and courage, others have interpreted as arrogance and inexperience.

“If he had said what he said in a way that people could better interpret he would have shown good political acumen, but by being so (publicly) honest he clearly has positioned himself in a way that the party has to deal with him,” said Smith, who emphasized that personally he is very fond of McCartney.

“Longevity is not on his side. He has not been around long enough. He’s a newcomer.

“He must have tremendous talent and personality which permits him to be effective, courteous, respectful and show that he has learned the game well enough and get people to say of him the many things he says of himself.”

A former politician who spent decades in frontline politics said of McCartney:

“He was in Cabinet for less than two years and then said he wanted to be leader or a substantive minister. It’s admirable to have ambition to go to the top but there’s a road, a protocol. Dion (Foulkes) and Tommy (Turnquest) came up through the party.

“I thought he was trying to do a good job in immigration, he made some errors but at least he was doing something. If he is able to control this particular situation he may survive but he has to get a handle on his public posturing.”

Among his colleagues, McCartney reportedly has little support.

“None of his Cabinet colleagues take him seriously. I don’t think he is seen as a contender. By resigning from Cabinet he removed himself as a contender for leadership,” said the FNM source.

McCartney was appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office, took many by surprise when he decided to resign last year February.

According to his resignation letter: “The factors that motivated this run the full gamut of issues and emotions, some more compelling than others. In the forefront are my feelings of stagnation and the inability to fully utilize my political potential at this time.”

He went on to say: “It is also my belief that our current political system is headed in the wrong direction…I have already proven myself on many levels and have much to be proud of, but it would be wrong of me to assume that I have proven myself to you without demonstrating the strength and diversity of knowledge you deserve.”

An interview following that resignation only added to the confusion.

McCartney said that as a member of the Cabinet he was required to tow the party line, and thought he could do more outside of the Ingraham Cabinet, “speak out on what is right and not based on party lines”.

He said at the time: “There is no doubt that the prime minister, Hubert Alexander Ingraham, is the best man for the job at this time. He is no doubt the best leader that we have had in our party and he remains that way today… I respect him, I support him. He has my full, full support.”

McCartney said at the time that he had no intention of challenging Ingraham for the leadership of the party. But that line changed later that year when McCartney made it known that if the FNM held its convention that year he would offer himself for leader. The FNM decided not to hold the convention, citing financial and other reasons.

WASTED OPPORTUNITY

Some thought that the opportunity to serve in the Cabinet was a great training ground for anyone with leadership aspirations, even if you disliked the style or some of the decisions of the prime minister.

“He had a chance to make his mark but he left. It takes years to make change but he didn’t give himself a chance,” said the FNM source, who pointed out that Ingraham obviously saw potential in McCartney or else he would not have been appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office.

Another criticism that has been leveled against McCartney is that he is not a team player, and had to be reminded that “Branville does not have a policy, the government has a policy”.

Some of his actions as junior minister in immigration were controversial and interpreted as grandstanding. Not only did it raise eyebrows in the country but warranted review by the prime minister.

“If he had remained in the cabinet, continued to perform and perform well, show that he was more politically savvy he would have had a good shot in serving in the leadership of the FNM,” said Rigby.

“His future may look dim today but that could change down the road. He must demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, at times it may be necessary to publicly criticize the party and leader but you have to be prepared to be an agent of change.”

2/7/2011

thenassauguardian national review

Bahamas Blog International

Labor, Politics and Majority Rule

The Bahama Journal Editorial


Another Majority Rule anniversary has come and has gone.

And so, today we reference matters germane to labor, politics and Majority Rule in the Bahamas.

And for sure – even as this one recedes into the mists that come with memories effaced; another will arrive and some other Bahamians will venture that, the General Strike of 1958 did play a massively important role in the social transformation of the Bahamas.

And so we would argue that those who now go in search of the mainspring governing action in those days might first wish to look at the leadership cadre behind the General Strike; there they would find Randol F. Fawkes [labor’s main man and champion of the so-called grass roots]; Clifford Darling, a taxi-driver [and therefore an owner in his own right of his means of production] and Lynden O. Pindling [as Parliamentary Leader of the then-nascent Progressive Liberal Party].

Fast forward to the social history available to most Bahamians and you would find that, it was the Progressive Liberal Party – with the help of a distinguished cadre of intellectuals and other political savvy men and women [with some of them like Clement Maynard, labor leaders in their own right]; that was able to command the support of the so-called “Majority”.

We would also venture that the role played by Clifford Darling and his men was the maneuver that did more than any other tactic to show the resolve of the Bahamian people not only in the specifics that had triggered the strike, but also in the broader struggle for full adult suffrage in the Bahamas.

And yet again, any fair reading of the social history of the past fifty-plus years would show that it was Pindling’s fate and that of his party to take the mantle and become the pioneers of development in a Bahamas that had entered history’s stream in a truly big way when the case of the Bahamas [that is its case for freedom] was argued before the United Nations.

This was like Black Tuesday of April 27th. 1965 uniquely Pindling’s.

As the record attests, Pindling and his Progressive Liberal Party went on to a series of victories that took them and the people they led to both so-called Majority Rule and Independence.

Evidently, they also faced some major challenges.

Highest on that list would be the damage done by the illicit trade in drugs throughout the Bahamian archipelago; the corrosive effects this trade had - and which it continues to have on social life in our country.

Notwithstanding this challenge and a host of others, there is no doubting the conclusion that the Bahamas built by Pindling endures. In this regard, it is nothing short of exemplary that the man who is today Chief and the man who would be Chief are both distinguished political alumni of the late and truly great Sir Lynden O. Pindling.

And so we would argue that if there is a legacy of 1958 that resounds even now; the resonance is to be found in the ascendancy of the Progressive Liberal Party in the years subsequent.

But even as we make these brief points concerning the General Strike of 1958, the eclipse of Fawkes and his supporters, the subsequent ascendancy of Pindling and the PLP, we also note that, despite their advances and that of the nation itself – there has always been an underclass of workers who have not benefited as much as they might have at one time or the other dreamed.

In addition, there are clearly any number of so-called ‘small’ businesses that have not been able to consolidate themselves in the all the years since the achievement of so-called Majority Rule.

This is not as surprising as it might – on first blush- appear; this because regardless of intention, no government no matter how well-intentioned, can make someone [or better still anyone] succeed in business.

And as an old saying puts it, money goes where money lies – and so it has and so will it continue.

But for sure – even as the evidence mounts that this is so, there remains a persistent cry to the effect that this or that group is being oppressed by another.

This is evidence of the highest order that the real struggle in our country and others has to do with the struggle between classes and the masses; and not that between the so-called ‘races’.

Indeed, such is the current state of political play in the Bahamas that both of this nation’s political parties now vie for the support of practically the same people; and thus the current slide towards a politics of tribalism and personal destruction.

January 11, 2011

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Dr Duane Sands intends to make Ryan Pinder the shortest sitting Member of Parliament in the history of The Bahamas when he defeats him in the 2012 general election

Sands has Pinder in his election sights
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net



FORMER FNM candidate for the Elizabeth constituency, Dr Duane Sands, said he intends to make Ryan Pinder the shortest sitting Member of Parliament in the history of the Bahamas when he defeats him in the upcoming general election.

Criticizing the PLP's youngest and most recent addition to the House of Assembly for his "national campaigning," Dr Sands claims Mr Pinder has failed to provide any proper representation for the people of Elizabeth.

"If he is unwilling or unprepared to do that task, I would imagine that the people of Elizabeth will put him aside. It is my goal that he will set a record for the shortest tenure in the House of Assembly," Dr Sands said yesterday.

In response to Dr Sands, Mr Pinder told The Tribune yesterday he has been representing the people of Elizabeth fully and has provided a number of opportunities for them in his short time in office.

"I have defeated Dr Sands in the by-election when all the odds were against me, and I will certainly defeat him again when the general election is called," he said.

Having lost the by-election by a razor-thin margin of only three votes, Dr Sands said he has taken full responsibility for the loss. However, he assured the public he has learned from this exercise and is working tirelessly to counteract any of the perceived or learned challenges that they had.

"Ultimately, I think the message I have gotten from many people is that they want to know you care, that you are concerned, and that you will do what you can do to intercede on their behalf. So I have been doing that.

"I can tell you that today alone, I have spoken to at least five or six young people that reside separately in Elizabeth in an effort to help them access the job market. I had the good fortune of being able to congratulate a young lady who was able to secure a job, and I think that is what it is all about. It's effort directed at people," he said.

Currently, Mr Pinder is perceived by many within the PLP as having the largest new-found public appeal in the party, and as such, has shot up through the ranks of the organisation. He can often be seen at various social or political events with the "top brass" of the party in tow.

Noting this manoeuvre, Dr Sands said he thought that politics in the Bahamas had moved beyond this type of showmanship.

"There is probably a bit of a role for that, but what is your primary function? Your primary function is representation of the people that put you in the House of Assembly. If you lose sight of that prize, the people will remind you in very short order that you have taken your eye off the ball.

"I certainly believe he has taken his eye off the ball. And while that has provided me with a strategic advantage I am disappointed, because the people in Elizabeth were really counting on a different kind of politics, a different kind of representation, and I think they have been short changed once again," he said.

To his criticisms of "showmanship" Mr Pinder said politicians today must realise that not every voter will visit an MP's office and as such they should venture out to the people to meet and greet them wherever they may be.

January 08, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Senator, Edison Key Resignation from The Senate

Edison Key on Perry Christie and his poor leadership and lack of direction

PLP Senator Resigns

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

17/02/2004

Slamming the government of Prime Minister Perry Christie for what he called poor leadership and lack of direction, Progressive Liberal Party Senator Edison Key has resigned from the upper chamber.

"I've had it up to my eyeballs," Mr. Key said in an exclusive interview with the Bahama Journal Monday.

He said his letter of resignation - dated January 10 - was hand delivered to the prime minister's office, but he said he has not received any kind of reaction from Mr. Christie.

"I had hoped that Mr. Christie would have printed my resignation in full to the media so that the Bahamian people could see exactly why I resigned," Mr. Key said.

But Prime Minister Perry Christie told the Journal Monday evening that Mr. Key was revealing something to the Journal that he (Mr. Christie) was not aware of.

"I am not in receipt of a resignation from Mr. Key," the prime minister said.  "I have not seen it and I have asked my office to put a trace on it.  He has not telephoned me.  Anyone who has given as much to the PLP as Edison Key has should not demit public office in this way.  He has been a warrior.  He has the greatest admiration from me.  I am surprised that he has chosen to do it this way."

Mr. Key said that he has only been invited to one parliamentary meeting since May 2002.

"I don't feel like I need to waste any more of my life mixed up with this crew here," he said.  "I wish them well but I think they're in for a rude awakening at the end of the journey."

Although Mr. Key said he resigned five weeks ago, there has been no announcement from the government to this effect.

"I am very disappointed in the government and the leadership," Mr. Key said.  "I really serve no purpose in this new government."

But he was quick to add that he planned to remain a member of the PLP.

"I've been a part of the PLP from 1970," Mr. Key reminded.  "I've been through all the struggles and trials and tribulations.  I ran here in Abaco when you [would have been considered] an outcast to even identify with the PLP, especially a white man in an all white area."

When asked how he would characterize the performance of the Christie government since it came to power in May 2002, the former senator said, "On a scale of one to 10?  Maybe a three."

He said he was shocked that the prime minister has kept secret his resignation.  Members of the Senate reportedly did not know up to Monday that Mr. Key was no longer a senator.

"If you notice, it's all about Christie," he charged.  "I wish him well.  I don't want to say too much bad about him."

He added, "I'm surprised that the prime minister hasn't called me.  He hasn't responded to it.  I haven't gotten anything in writing from him.  I'm very disappointed and I just wish them well, but I have had it up to my neck bone."

Mr. Key said he did not feel valued as a senator.

"I've turned in dozens of applications and recommendations and not one of them has been acknowledged in over a year and a half," he said.  "There is no use me wasting my time...I'm not 16 anymore and there is no use me being a part of something that I'm on the outside of and I don't know what's going on. I'm a senator."

He also spoke to what he indicated was the uselessness of the senate.

"The senate has only met several times since the new government [came to office]," he said.  "It's a waste of money for the senators not to be a part of the overall decision making in the country.

"The government only expects when they send bills up there [for senators] to support whatever they send.  It's a rubber stamp and it needs to be considered whether the senate needs to stay in its present form or senators be elected so that they can speak their minds and say what they want to say."

Mr. Key served as a senator in the former PLP government from 1977 to 1982 and 1987 to 1992.  He also served as a Member of Parliament from 1982 to 1987 and 1992 to 1997. Mr. Key also served as chairman of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation from 1985 to 1992.