The long awaited revolution in The Bahamas

The Cuban Detainees And The Long-Awaited Revolution

By Rupert Missick Jr

THERE are a generation of Bahamians, men in particular, who in their minds missed out on their opportunity to make revolution … not necessarily “the revolution” or “a revolution” but any revolution.

 

They have a subconscious fear that they will close the final chapter of their lives as tepid footnotes in the annals of our history.

 

You see, they were old enough to have fed on the godlike words of Martin Luther King Jr, to drink the prophetic sermons of Malcolm X and bathed in the hot bath of Newton and Seal’s Black Panther Philosophy but were too young to do anything about it other than channel their teenage and collegiate angst to sympathize and dream of the day when they too could really speak truth to power.

 

They read the fiery words of CLR James and Fanon and believed that one day, when they had their turn in directing the wheel of the nation’s progress, that “Wretched of the Earth” would become the basis of their national and foreign policy.

 

They envied the testicular fortitude of Fidel Castro, Jomo Kenyatta and Nelson Mandela and promised themselves that when it was their turn, they would be no less of a man than they were.

 

This was the generation who, as doe-eyed children looked upon Butler, Pindling, Hanna and Foulkes on the platforms of the Southern Recreation Grounds as they clung to the hem of their mommy’s housecoat.

 

These are the ones who sat at a distance when the founding fathers heatedly debated Independence under the shade of their newly hard fought for political power.

 

But when they came of age, their bodies eager to convert that potential energy into a kinetic force of progressive postcolonial action, they found that the Caesar of the day, unlike his Roman counterpart, had indeed surrounded himself with fat, sleek-headed men.

 

They found a Bahamas that was no longer willing to, or at least did not see the need to march, to rebel, to revolt and even if they did, who would it be against?

 

The colonialist, beaten and worn by the blitz and the strain the colony placed on their purse, were gone and happy to leave; the white men who ran Bay Street, while an ever present and available scapegoat had been virtually castrated and became, in their estimation, regrettable partners in building this new nation.

 

The country to the north that Cuba and Jamaica had once defied was now sacrosanct and the source of most imports and the reason behind most jobs.

 

They found themselves in a place where the sexiness of the physical struggle against oppression was gone and the romance of a postcolonial world was a smouldering ember in the campfire of greater men than they were.
 

They woke up with the reigns of political power, and by extension the means to direct economic power, in their hands.

 

So, now, if their revolution would come, it would come for them.

 

They were now faced with being actors in a more difficult kind of revolution. This revolution would require a more existential change; a revolution of consciousness, a revolution that would require them to abandon their new found comfort and launch into unchartered waters.

 

It required them to be creative, to reject the perpetuation of paternalism, of tribalism to teach a new reality to a new people.

 

But they failed. It was too abstract for them; it was not the kind of fight they were looking for.

 

This was a fight that was complicated, required work and had no clear enemy. In fact, in this fight sometimes they were the enemy and other times the people were the enemy. But how could you ever admit that out loud?

 

No, better resurrect the ghosts of the enemies from the decades before, the “hidden, outside forces” that they wanted to fight in the 60s and 70s.

 

Perhaps the biggest opportunity of their lifetime would have been to transform the Bahamas’ constitution into a progressive, modern document that could have been the envy of the hemisphere.

 

But through negotiations between tradition and the status quo we were served a bland report which amounted to a watered down porridge of convenience, necessity and compromise.

 

With the more “radical” positions on the Constitutional Commission beaten back by “reality”, this great post-colonial Bahamian generation now faces a future where they will die with their Queen or her successors reigning over them, a bicameral parliamentary system with an appointed senate, and a final court of “real adults” in London to correct their judicial errors.

 

In this regard I found the juxtaposition of our Prime Minister standing in the same spot where a great man once drew the attention of his nation to the “fierce urgency of now” and exhorted the world against taking the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism” heartbreaking.

 

I don’t know if that generation will ever understand what they missed, what they had, what they let slip through their fingers.

In the United States, activists like King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers never had the kind of power that the men of their same generation had in the Bahamas.

 

Even today, there is no constitutional power in the United States which is comparable to the power which Mr Christie wields here at home.
 

What could Rep John Lewis, the last living speaker of the original March on Washington, who as a 23 year old led and organized the march from Selma to Montgomery, who faced down the dogs, hoses and state troupers of Southern racists, who is now only three years older than Perry Christie, what could he have done for his country and his people if he possessed the kind of constitutional powers that Mr Christie has now.

 

Mr Christie’s grand appearance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and his call to stand up for “dignity” and “social justice” is punctuated by his laid back response and acquiescence to the counterintuitive, self-destructive approach his minister has taken to handling the controversy of the brutal beating of illegal immigrants at home.

 

Today the language that we hear surrounding the controversy of the Cuban detainees, the frothing, hyperbolic defense of nationhood and national identity, the subtextual suggestion that those who fail to defend the abuse of the detainees are somehow ashamed of their skin colour, the accusations of aid giving to the enemy and promises that political opponents will be crushed, these are the death rattle of a generation desperate to fight a revolution, only it’s not the one that is actually theirs to fight.
 

Our great post-colonial generation missed a teachable moment where honesty, forthrightness and transparency could have not only shortened the length of this issue but could have served as an excellent counterpoint to the malignant dishonesty prevalent in our society.

 

Instead, they hunkered down, wrapped themselves in our flag and warmed themselves with anti-colonial rhetoric.

 

These words neither protect nor advance our nationhood. They are just words and they will never fill the hole that their lack of creativity and courage will leave behind in our society.

 

It’s cheap invective that in the long run means nothing significant to either the world or the future of this country.

 

But in the end, it’s red meat for the base; it’s a pleasant distraction from the work of the long awaited revolution.

September 02, 2013

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

The birth and death of Jumbey Village: ...the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment... the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution

Backbenchers disillusioned by govt - Moxey

tribune242 editorial

THERE are those today who are convinced that if Ed Moxey's dream of a cultural community centre in the heartland of the Grove had been allowed to grow, the shipwrecked state over which we mourn today would not have had a chance to develop.

Jumbey Village was conceived by Mr Moxey as a cultural centre to unite a people as they struggled to improve their lot -- socially, culturally and economically. It was envisioned as a centre to be built by the people for themselves. They would have their school, library, social centre, clinics, sports, music, and arts and crafts from which they could sell their own creations. And, of course, they would be surrounded by music -- their own music. Mr Moxey, himself a musician, the son of the well known pianist, the late George "God Bless" Moxey, and his group would be one of the many participants. It was through the Jumbey Village movement that Timothy Gibson, the author of the Bahamas' national anthem, came into his own.

On Sunday, March 11, the showing of a documentary on Ed Moxey and the birth and death of Jumbey Village was premiered at the Performing Arts Theatre at the College of the Bahamas. It was the 26th anniversary of the destruction of Jumbey Village.

"The Price of being a man" is the story of Ed Moxey, Jumbey Village and the "quiet revolution."

"This then," said the commentator, "is the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment, the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution. It is told as seen through his eyes, those who reported on it and in some instances, those who were involved in facilitating its creation and ultimately watching its destruction."

According to Mr Moxey "shortly after the 1967 election, many of the PLP, especially the backbenchers already had concerns about the direction in which the new government was heading." He said their first Speech from the Throne in the House of Assembly appeared to be a "continuation of the same old policies of the United Bahamian Party (UBP)." Of course, there was the exception of Sir Stafford's commission of a development plan for New Providence that "would have transformed over the hill, in particular the Grants Town community."

That plan, designed by Columbia University's School of Architecture, was completed and delivered shortly after the UBP was replaced by the PLP as the government of the Bahamas. Each member of the House at that time was given a copy. It is questionable whether any member ever looked at it. It was a golden opportunity lost for community development in New Providence.

Very shortly after the election, said Mr Moxey, he "became concerned about whether or not the Bahamian people would see the social, cultural and economic liberation promised by the PLP's 1967 victory at the polls."

Mr Moxey was so concerned that they would not that in June 1967 he called a meeting at his home for the PLP backbenchers. He did so, he said, because nothing had been said by their leaders about "educating the masses about how government worked and protecting their well being" or "cultivating and nurturing our cultural heritage and only some vague representation of social programmes."

According to Mr Moxey "the backbenchers to a man, all expressed disgruntlement with what they considered a deviation from the original goal of social, cultural and economic upliftment of the people, with ministers building little kingdoms unto themselves."

It was then that Mr Moxey predicted that the "country would end up on the rocks, or with very serious challenges."

Said the commentator: "There is no smoking gun, just a paper trail 21 miles long and 7 miles wide, stretching all the way back to 1969. A trail that exposes betrayals, pettiness, internecine warfare and what has been called deception of the highest order. It shows a government backtracking or just plain ignoring its own stated policy that 'community development must play a vital role in the development of this nation, specifically mentioned in the White Paper for Independence that 'community development centres will be progressively and systematically established in densely populated areas to cater for pre-natal and post-natal needs, Child Day-Care needs and the recreational needs of the people."

* Next we shall tell the brief, but tragic story of the birth and death of Jumbey Village.

March 23, 2012

A people betrayed, says Ed Moxey, of the Pindling years 

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

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

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



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

- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist, satirist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government

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

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

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

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

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

Politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unions

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 21, 2011

tribune242 insight

Bahamas Blog International

The Advent of The First Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Government in The Bahamas

SIR RANDOL FAWKES AND MAJORITY RULE

“BAY STREET BOYS COULDN’T BUY RANDOL FAWKES”

The Miami Herald

Monday, February 6^th, 1967

Jim Bishop: Reporter

Nassau, The Bahamas - The election returns came in sporadically.  Neither the whites nor the Negroes believed the totals.  Pindling’s P.L.P., which had 10 seats out of the 38 seats in the Assembly, hoped to add a few more.  The United Bahamian Party needed only twenty seats to maintain the control.  They weren’t making it.

A silent horror fell over the mansions in the limestone hills.  A revolution was in progress.  No bullets bounced off the elegant façade of Governor Sir Ralph Grey’s mansion.  The work was being done with ballots.  Ironically, this had been the weapon used by the Bay Street Boys to maintain power over the natives.

ONE BY ONE, the natives began to win the seats. Dr. McMillan in Fort  Charlotte; Maurice Moore in Grand Bahama East; Thompson in Eleuthra; Levartiy in Bimini and West End;  Pindling himself in South Andros.  When all the returns had been counted, it was obvious that the P.L.P. had eighteen seats; the U.P.B. had eighteen; A.R. Braynen, an independent, had one; Randol Fawkes and his Labour party had one.

Nobody had a clear majority.  The winning party always furnishes the Speaker of the House from the elected Assembly, and neither side could do it without dropping to seventeen votes.  At once a night battle began for Braynen’s vote, more important Fawkes’!

Lynden Pindling offered Braynen the Speakership, and it was accepted.  The Speaker had no vote, except when the House is tied. So contending forces remained 18-18.  Fawkes was in his St. Barnabas district, listening to the plaudits of his adherents, when-so he says-the Premier himself paid a personal visit.

SIR ROLAND SYMONETTE is accustomed to having people come to him.  He knew and so did Fawkes, that revolution hinged on a solitary vote. If Bay Street Boys could bring Randol Fawkes to their side, at any price, Pindling and his “colored “government was stillborn.  “Name you terms,” the Premier said.  “Whatever it is, we will meet it.”

Fawkes has a boyish grin that hides embarrassment.  He poured it on.  A few years earlier he had been banished from the islands; had carried cakes of ice in Harlem to keep alive.  Now he could name his “terms” to the Premier of her Majesty’s Government.  Would he ask a million? A half a million and a ministry? 

The Negro said he was sorry.  He had decided to go along with Pindling.  He had no terms; no price.  It is incredible that, in a lazy group of islands where votes can be bought like seashells, man chose not to be rich.  The answer was, “No.”

This gave Lynden O. Pindling a Speaker and a 19-18 majority in the House.  Sir Roland and his Government resigned.  That night people danced in the streets.  Black-tie diners in the Bahamian Club and Buena Vista sipped expensive soups absent-mindedly.  The world had come to an end.

HOME to The Positive Achievements of Sir Randol Fawkes>>>