The PLP and FNM are Two Peas in a Pod

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

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

By Dennis Dames

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

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

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

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

Shanendon Cartwright on Politics and good public policy in The Bahamas

Is good public policy good politics? Absolutely!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics and policy

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

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

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

Good policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 25, 2014

thenassauguardian

Flip-floppers and double talk in Bahamian Politics

Double talk

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

BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider these few examples:

Dr. Bernard Nottage on the Coroner’s Court

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

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

But as national security minister, his tone is different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darron Cash and BTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could Darron Cash expect anyone to take him seriously?

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

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

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

The mid-year budget statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such is politics I suppose.

Unemployment numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After all, nobody loves a hypocrite.

February 18, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

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

Renewal 'Bigger Than Politics'

 

By DENISE MAYCOCK
Tribune Freeport  Reporter
dmaycock@tribunemedia.net


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 19, 2012

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...questions of money in Bahamian politics — and questionable money in politics in The Bahamas still linger with a new election season upon us

Sir Lynden's Money Bill



By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com


A bill to govern money in politics that was drafted more than three decades ago under the Pindling administration was dead on arrival, National Review can reveal.

The comprehensive proposed act “to make provision for the registration of political parties; for the regulation and control of political contributions; for the public funding of elections and for other purposes incidental thereto and connected therewith” never made it to the halls of Parliament.

Perhaps it’s because there was no political will to do so.

Thirty-one years after the campaign finance bill was drafted, there are still calls from some politicians — and from other Bahamians — for a law to govern money in politics.

But there is still no political will to do so.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said earlier this year he does not believe that campaign financing laws are necessary, adding that the government cannot "legislate honesty."

However, Ingraham said he would have no difficulty whatsoever disclosing the sources of his political financing.

Ingraham said campaign finance laws are found to be very ineffective in countries where they are in place.

"The United States is a good example," he said.

"The campaign financing laws are very ineffective. What they spend on elections in the US is unbelievable and they have campaign finance laws. You cannot legislate honesty. The dishonest will be dishonest no matter what you do. That's why people still murder other people even though the law says 'thou should not kill'."

Under the Christie administration, while there was a stated commitment to such a law and even attention given to the issue by the much-touted constitutional review commission, there was no action on bringing legislation to Parliament.

After Prime Minister Ingraham revealed recently that Opposition Leader Perry Christie had neglected to forward recommendations for changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act months after being invited in writing to do so, Christie spoke with us about the kinds of changes he wished to see.

High on his list was a desire for a campaign finance law, perhaps similar to the 1980 bill he reportedly had knowledge of, but which continued to catch dust on a shelf.

“It is critical really to the integrity of elections,” said Christie recently, adding that the Progressive Liberal Party was looking at laws passed in the region “to ensure that we not only make sound recommendations, but recommendations that have been tested”.

He said the Ingraham administration ought to be addressing the issue of money in elections.
Asked why he never did, Christie expressed regret that other priorities meant that his administration never got around to bringing a bill to govern campaign finances.

“Everything evolves in a country and when I first came into office I actually spoke very strongly about a code of ethics, and I wanted to bring that into law and I didn’t do it,” he said.

“And so, you look back and you know that you had an opportunity to influence laws for the good and you regret, but that is what politics is all about — the priorities that we had; the pace of governance has put me in a position where you can look back and say ‘yeah I did a lot of things, but my goodness, I wish I had done that’.

“...You always have regrets and so I’m not going to be distracted by the fact that we had the opportunity and we didn’t.”

THE 1980 BILL

George Smith, who was a member of the Pindling Cabinet in 1980, said he was aware of discussions Pindling had about the need for a campaign finance law. But he never knew a bill was actually drafted.

Not many people did apparently.

Under the 37-page bill obtained by National Review as part of its examination of the money in politics issue, a registrar of political parties would have been appointed.

That person would have been able to, at any reasonable time, enter the premises of a political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act to examine its books, papers and documents and would have been able to request such information as he may reasonably require to discharge his responsibilities.

If the bill had been passed, contributions to political parties, party branches and candidates could only be made by individuals, companies and trade unions.

No person or entity would have been able to make a contribution using money that did not belong to him, or that was given to him by another person or entity.

The bill also mandated that all moneys contributed to political parties, party branches and candidates in excess of $100 could only be made by a check having the name of the contributor legibly printed, signed by the contributor and drawn on an account in the contributor’s name or by a money order signed by the contributor.

The bill would have required contributions to be paid into the appropriate depository on record with the registrar of political parties.

It also mandated that any anonymous contribution valued in excess of $25 received shall not be used or expended, but shall be returned to the contributor if the contributor’s identity could be established, and if the contributor’s identity could not be established, the contribution would be turned over to the registrar and forwarded to the treasurer of The Bahamas.

Under the Act, if it had been passed, contributions by any person, company or trade union would have been limited to $10,000 per year to each party, and $1,000 to any registered party branch.

It also said that no political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act could directly or indirectly, knowingly accept contributions from any person normally resident outside The Bahamas or from any company that does not carry on business in The Bahamas or from any trade union that is not registered in The Bahamas.

The bill would have also mandated that all political party have a chief financial officer responsible for proper records, ensuring that contributions are placed in the appropriate depository and financial statements are filed with the registrar of political parties.
The chief financial officer would also have been responsible for ensuring that contributions consisting of goods or services were valued and recorded.

The bill also would have mandated that party borrowing from financial institutions were properly recorded.

Under the law, all moneys to be used for a political campaign by a candidate out of his or her own funds would be deemed to be a contribution.

In addition to covering a number of other key areas, including campaign advertising, the bill also outlined a number of offenses.

For example, any chief financial office of a political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act, who contravened any of the provisions would have been guilty and liable to a fine of $1,000.

Again, the bill was drafted in 1980.

Had it been passed by Parliament, no prosecution could be instituted without the consent in writing of the attorney general.

It still is unclear today why the bill was never brought to Parliament.

George Smith offered a view in this regard: “I guess it didn’t get on the front burner because the party was winning based on its performance. In many constituencies in the country, like in Exuma where I ran, though wealthy individuals ran against me I won handsomely, as did my colleague, Livingston Coakley,” he said.

“It wasn’t considered a priority. I think we were preoccupied with other things like social legislation, a works program, trying to expand the tourism plant. We were trying to expand agriculture and the fisheries industry, growing the economy with some diversification.”
Smith said political parties should win elections based on their philosophies, programs and quality of candidates.

“If we use that approach money would only matter when those things are not in the forefront of what a party is running on,” he said.

MONEY MATTERS

In politics as in life, money does matter.

I remember the first press conference hosted by Perry Christie after he lost the government in 2007.

The one question he tried to avoid was the one that should have been the most obvious: What do you believe led to your defeat?

After insisting that it was a matter that would require deep consideration, Christie said he believed the Progressive Liberal Party was outspent by Hubert Ingraham and his Free National Movement.

Indeed, political parties have scraped together substantial sums of money in their bid for power.

A 2003 U.S. diplomatic cable previously reported on by The Nassau Guardian said Tommy Turnquest, then leader of the FNM, revealed that his party would need to spend between $150,000 and $250,000 on a potential by-election in the then Holy Cross constituency.

In that same cable, obtained through WikiLeaks, former PLP MP and businessman Franklyn Wilson told a U.S. Embassy official that his party spent around $7 million on the 2002 general election campaign.

Because money donated in The Bahamas to political parties is donated with the understanding that the donors’ identities will not be publicly disclosed, political parties are under an ‘unofficial obligation’ to keep the sources of party financing secret, noted the cable.

The Americans either had a fascination with The Bahamas’ lack of campaign finance laws, or deep concerns about this, because they widely discussed the issue of money in politics in their cables to Washington, DC.

They noted in a 2004 cable: “Both of The Bahamas' two major political parties live in glass houses when it comes to campaign contributions.”

The cable traced the Mohammed Harajchi controversy — a situation in which political contributions backfired in a very nasty and public way.

The Iranian businessman claimed that he had been approached, either directly or via intermediaries, by ‘90 percent of the (Christie) Cabinet’ for campaign contributions, had helped to refurbish PLP headquarters, and had underwritten several PLP political rallies, among other things.

Harajchi denied that his contributions (allegedly $10 million) were designed to gain reinstatement of his bank's operating license, which had been revoked in 2001.

At a press conference, the PLP emphasized that it is neither illegal nor improper for political parties in The Bahamas to accept donations from individuals, and highlighted attention on Harajchi's confirmation that he had received no favor or promise in exchange for his financial donation.

In a 2006 cable, still on the subject of money in politics, an American diplomat wrote that it is “widely accepted” that the government’s extradition of convicted drug dealer Samuel ‘Ninety’ Knowles would lead to “withdrawal of an important source of election funding”.

“As one Cabinet minister observed, there are no controls or limits other than the conscience of the politician,” the diplomat wrote. “In addition, money can come from any source, including international donors.”

The cable said millions of dollars were allegedly obtained from “questionable sources” in the 2002 campaign.

Almost 10 years after that historic election, questions of money in politics — and questionable money in politics — still linger with a new election season upon us.

And while there are several key bills the Ingraham administration must bring if it is to fulfill legislative promises, a money bill like the secret 1980 document is not among them.

Jul 18, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

WikiLeaks: U.S. Embassy in Nassau cable on the 2004 Mohammed Harajchi controversy and the issue of money in politics in The Bahamas

Cable examined '04 Harajchi affair

CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com


The repeated call by some MPs this week for a law to address money in politics appears to be coming too late before the next general election to be taken seriously at this time, but a diplomatic cable that documented the 2004 Mohammed Harajchi controversy also highlights the need for such reform.

The scandal was dug from the grave momentarily in the House of Assembly yesterday evening by Carmichael MP Desmond Bannister, who noted that former Prime Minister Perry Christie never delivered on a promise to provide a full accounting of the contributions Harajchi made to the PLP in the run-up to the 2002 general election.

An American diplomat wrote of the affair in great detail in a cable obtained through WikiLeaks, pointing to the Iranian businessman’s controversial claim to have pumped millions of dollars into the PLP campaign.

As was done in previous cables, the U.S. Embassy official underscored the issue of money in politics in The Bahamas, but did not limit statements to the then ruling PLP.

“Both of The Bahamas' two major political parties live in glass houses when it comes to campaign contributions,” said the cable, which was classified by then U.S. Charge d’ Affaires Robert Witajewski.

“Harajchi claims to have been about putting down explicit quid pro quo markers in return for the contributions. As much as the FNM opposition might like to exploit Harajchi's corruption charges leveled against the Christie government and cast some rocks at the PLP's home, it knows that it too cannot afford close scrutiny of the source — and quid pro quos of — its own party's campaign contributions.”

The cable noted that Harajchi presented documentation of some of his financial contributions to the PLP during a press event held at his multi-million-dollar Paradise Island home on August 11, 2004.

Harajchi denied that his contributions (allegedly $10 million) were designed to gain reinstatement of his bank's operating license, which had been revoked in 2001, the cable pointed out.

It also noted that the PLP issued a statement highlighting Harajchi's confirmation that he received no political favors in exchange for his contributions.

“Prime Minister Christie, who raised Harajchi's pending announcement three times with the charge at an unrelated event, appearing uneasy and preoccupied, and released a press statement on August 12 angrily denying that he or his ministers had accepted improper contributions. The PM specifically denied that he had received $500,000 from Harajchi to renovate his Cable Beach home.

“Christie promised that the PLP would soon give a full and accurate accounting of Harajchi's donations.”

Speaking in the House of Assembly yesterday evening during debate on a bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act, Bannister also repeated that Christie promised the accounting on the Harajchi contributions.

“Mr. Speaker, we are still awaiting details on that accounting,” Bannister said. “We are late again, Mr. Speaker.”

The cable added, “Harajchi claimed that he had been approached, either directly or via intermediaries, by ‘90 percent of the (Christie) Cabinet’ for campaign contributions, had helped to refurbish PLP headquarters, and had underwritten several PLP political rallies, among other things.

“Harajchi denied that his generosity was designed to win back the operating license of his bank... Harajchi lost several court appeals to have his license reinstated.”

The cable noted that Harajchi insisted to reporters that Christie reached out to him prior to the 2002 campaign to express his belief that Harajchi's bank license case had been handled badly. Harajchi said he told Christie that he was no longer fighting to get his license restored, but rather to get ‘justice’ and clear his name.

“When asked in a press conference if Christie made him any promises regarding his bank license, Harajchi declined to answer, calling the prime minister ‘an honorable man’ and advising reporters to take the matter up with him directly,” the cable said.

At a press conference, the PLP emphasized that it is neither illegal or improper for political parties in The Bahamas to accept donations from individuals, and highlighted attention on Harajchi's confirmation that he had received no favor or promise in exchange for his financial donation.

In the comment section of the cable, the U.S. Embassy official wrote: “Prime Minister Christie spent the hours before Harajchi's press event at the opening of a disaster preparedness conference sponsored by the Bahamian National Emergency Management Agency.

“During the course of the morning, the PM quietly raised Harajchi's pending press conference three times with the charge as the two sat next to each other and talked. Christie uncharacteristically stayed for the entire event and seemed reluctant to go back to his office where, he knew, reporters would be awaiting his response to Harajchi's allegations.”

The cable noted that after previously leaving the public comments to his ministers, Christie personally turned his guns on Harajchi in an effort to decisively disassociate himself and his party from the businessman.

In the weeks and months that followed, the Harajchi controversy died, as did talk of money in campaigns.

It flared up again several times since then.

According to a criminal complaint filed in 2009 in support of money laundering related charges against Bahamian attorney Sidney Cambridge, then Broward County Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion told an undercover FBI agent that he was going to raise funds for sitting Prime Minister Christie’s 2007 re-election bid.

It was a claim Christie strongly denied.

The PLP leader told The Nassau Guardian just days ago that there ought to be a law to address campaign finances, and expressed regret that he was not able to get to the issue while in office.

Several MPs also raised the issue this week during contribution to the debate in the House of Assembly on the bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act.

This issue of campaign finances has been discussed on and off on the national scene for years.

In 2006, former Attorney General Paul Adderley said The Bahamas had been "severely influenced" by money in politics for more than 100 years, and it was time somebody did something about it.

"We're trying to do something about the influence that rich men can have or try to have over politicians. Don't let us fool around with this one in terms of what we're trying to do," said Adderley, who at the time headed the Christie-appointed Constitutional Review Commission.

Adderley's Commission lost its life under the FNM administration, but had recommended that Parliament prescribe controls and limits over donations to political parties, candidates and political campaign expenditure to ensure transparency and accountability in local and national elections.

The need to reform campaign finances is something that officials from both major political parties seem to agree on.

In 2006, former FNM leader and current Minister of National Security Tommy Turnquest said, "I believe we ought to begin steps to move toward some sort of campaign finance reform. I think there ought to be some transparency and accountability with respect to how political parties receive funding."

Jun 30, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International