In reality, the Vote Yes lobby lost the gambling referendum because it had a number of powerful forces ranged against it: certain churches ...the official opposition party ...the most successful third party in Bahamian history ...and a former prime minister who commands an enormous personal following

A Victory For The Pharisees

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

pnunez@tribunemedia.net

 

 

 

IN botching the gambling referendum, Perry Christie and his Progressive Liberal Party dealt a serious blow to the prospects for liberalism and progress in the Bahamas.

 

The overwhelming “no” vote did more than ensure gambling remains illegal for Bahamians; it empowered a religious movement that is on a mission to suppress certain personal freedoms and insinuate itself into everything we do – from what we watch on TV, to what happens in our bedrooms.

 

Forget all the talk of preserving the country’s Christian roots. Those at the forefront of the Vote No movement represent a fundamentalism which harks back to a past that never existed, which seeks to establish something entirely new – a moral police state.

 

And now, even more than before, the “Save our Bahamas” pastors, the Christian Council, and their followers will believe they have a mandate to push their views on the rest of society.

 

In reality, the Vote Yes lobby lost the referendum because it had a number of powerful forces ranged against it: certain churches, the official opposition party, the most successful third party in Bahamian history, and a former prime minister who commands an enormous personal following.

 

And, those who either voted “no” or stayed home, did so for a variety of reasons. Church loyalty was certainly one of them, but there was also party loyalty, resentment that the promised gambling education campaign never materialised, and suspicion the referendum was really a reward for certain web shop bosses who donated to the PLP’s election campaign.

 

Also, a certain degree of apathy was in hindsight probably inevitable. Many Bahamians who might support legal gambling didn’t see the point of going to the trouble of voting for an activity they already engage in on a daily basis with no hindrance whatsoever.

 

But the pastors won’t see it that way. To them this will have been a victory for forces of conservatism and coerced conformity – proof that Bahamians overwhelmingly want to live under a religious regime.

 

Now that gambling is defeated, we can be sure that other pet peeves of the Christian Council will be next in the crosshairs; issues such as homosexuality, the showcasing of “immoral” films, performances by “unchristian” musicians.

 

We may even have another campaign defending the right of a man to rape his wife.

 

A few years ago, when the Bill to make marital rape illegal was introduced by the FNM administration, only to be denounced as immoral by the Christian Council, INSIGHT noted that “The public statements of Council members over the past several years have made it clear they feel social progress – defined by most of the western world as having to do with rights and democracy – threatens much of what they hold dear. After all many of them have become exceedingly comfortable in their roles as the self-appointed moral arbiters of the nation.”

 

Back in 2006, when the Play and Films Control Board banned the film Brokeback Mountain at the request of a group of pastors, local theatre director Philip Burrows said: “You have a group of people who are telling grown men and women what they can and cannot watch. I cannot understand denying people the right to make their own choices.”

 

Neither could the rest of the world. An Associated Press story about the ban was reprinted by hundreds of newspapers around the world, and brought widespread condemnation down on a country that has nothing to rely on for survival but its international reputation.

 

Then, as now, it was the government – the very entity charged with safeguarding our reputation – which opened the door to this kind of nearsighted and dangerous fundamentalism.

 

The fact that the abetment was unintentional this time around is no excuse.

 

Had there been a proper education campaign as promised, had the arguments for and against casino gambling at least been discussed, or had Mr Christie committed to banning anyone who broke the old gambling laws from ownership in the new industry, things might have been different.

 

Certainly, he would have neutralised the strongest arguments for voting “no” put forward by his political opponents, thereby making it a real liberals-vs-pastors referendum.

 

As it was, those of us who support the expansion of rights and personal freedoms were left with an impossible choice: vote “no” and support continued discrimination against Bahamians in their own country, or vote “yes” and run the risk of allowing the government to form a gambling cartel of campaign donors, to the exclusion of all other citizens.

 

Either way, you were voting against equal rights.

 

In making it so, Mr Christie and his colleagues are guilty of squandering a priceless opportunity and retarding the cause of progress for who knows how many years to come.

 

Gambling is in many ways, the last frontier in overcoming our colonial past.

 

Gambling is in many ways, the last frontier in overcoming our colonial past. It is the modern theatre of our civil rights struggle.

 

Amid all the moral, economic and other arguments, one fact is undisputed: a foreigner can come to this country and do something a Bahamian cannot.

 

That is no different from any other form of discrimination, be it assigned bus seats, separate schools, restaurants reserved for a specific group of people.

 

The Save Our Bahamas crew do have a point in this regard - if we really believe gambling is morally wrong, we should ban it outright, for foreigners as well as locals, and have the courage to suffer the economic consequences of taking a stand against hypocrisy.

 

The pastors, it should also be said, make no apologies for what they believe and do not hide what they stand for.

 

Meanwhile, the Progressive Liberal Party, by virtue of its very name, is supposed to be a force for progress and liberalism.

 

They have a lot of explaining to do.

 

What do you think?

 

Email your questions or comments to pnunez@tribunemedia.net, or join the conversation at http://www.tribune242.com/news/opinion/insight/

 

February 04, 2013

 

Tribune 242

 

Caribbean Blog International

 

Philip Galanis says: Branville McCartney did not offer concrete solutions on how his new political party will tackle the myriad problems facing The Bahamas in his recent Democratic National Alliance (DNA) launch speech

McCartney's DNA offered no concrete solutions to country's problems


By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net



BRANVILLE McCartney did not offer concrete solutions on how his new political party will tackle the myriad problems facing the country, said former Senator Philip Galanis.

Mr Galanis' comments came days after the launch of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and the unveiling of 10 candidates who will vie for constituency seats under the party's banner in the next election. Mr Galanis said more tangible plans will likely be forthcoming over the next few weeks or months, but he believes that those looking for answers from Mr McCartney last week were disappointed.

"I would be very interested in understanding how Mr McCartney is going to be able to solve the country's issues and challenges.

"He spoke much about the things that need to be addressed, which we all know, but we didn't get a sense of how he's going to address that. I think that's what people want to hear, how are we going to get a hold on crime, how are we going to improve the economy and create jobs - people want specifics," said Mr Galanis when contacted by The Tribune yesterday.

"(For all the parties) if they are going to attract voters they are going to have to address issues of crime, unemployment and immigration.

"I wasn't particularly impressed with the (DNA's) candidates there were a couple that I thought would be good, but they didn't seem to have any depth," added Mr Galanis, a former senator and managing partner of chartered accounting firm Galanis, Horton & Co.

Still, Mr Galanis told The Tribune he believes that the DNA may siphon votes from the two established parties due to voter dissatisfaction with the status quo.

"I think he will affect both the PLP's and FNM's votes (though) I think it's more likely that he is going to attract FNM votes. In looking at the people in the room the other night many of them appeared to be FNMs.

"As a former FNM candidate and junior minister that would be his natural base but in all fairness there are a lot undecided people who are looking for change and who would welcome change if they think it will (shift) the established order," Mr Galanis added.

Officials in the Free National Movement and the Opposition Progressive Liberal Party have dismissed the chance that a third party can wrestle power from the two political parties, who have governed intermittently for decades.

However Mr Galanis said other countries with the Westminster system have seen impressive challenges to the dominant two-party system, a feat he thinks can be duplicated in this country. "I will not downplay the potential impact an alternative party can have particularly today when you consider the disaffection from and disappointment in the two mainstream parties.

"People are tired of the status quo, everywhere around the world in the Westminster Parliamentary model changes are taking place and alternative party models are making their presence felt in England, Australian and close at home in Trinidad and Tobago we saw the established parties significantly challenged in their recent elections.

"Third parties are making their presence felt around the world," said Mr Galanis.

May 16, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) receives "mixed reviews" from the general public on its official launch

'MIXED REVIEWS' AFTER DNA'S OFFICIAL LAUNCH

tribune242


AFTER its official launch on Thursday night at the Wyndham Crystal Palace Resort, the Democratic National Alliance is getting "mixed reviews" from the general public.

According to numerous persons interviewed by this newspaper, many agreed that the DNA was successful in drawing a large crowd to their official launch - a feat unmatched to this date by any third party option since Independence.

While many speculated as well on the actual make-up of this crowd, whether persons were there primarily as supporters or mere spectators, it was still noted that for the DNA to fill the hotel's ballroom was an accomplishment "in and of itself."

However, the commentary on the actual content of Branville McCartney's speech was another matter.

According to one online blogger on The Tribune's website, tribune242.com, C'Mon Man, there was little difference in Mr McCartney's speech from any other that was delivered by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham or PLP Leader Perry Christie.

"If you closed your eyes during Bran's speech last night, it would have been difficult to discern from the content of the speech Bran from Hubert Ingraham or Perry Christie because all I heard was the same old politician speak. We gonna do dis for you, we gonna do dat for you and we gonna make all your dreams come true without ever saying where the money gonna come from to do these things.

"We Bahamians say we don't like to be talked down to, but everytime a politician talk to us like this they are talking down to us by telling us what they think we want to hear. It would have been refreshing for a politician to just be honest for a change and tell it like it is the good, bad and the ugly. Otherwise we will only be changing faces with the same old politics," the blogger noted.

Erasmus Folly, a regular blogger on tribune242.com also wrote that he was not impressed with the DNA's launch.

"The candidates leave much to be desired. The guy from Exuma already proved he doesn't understand business. The others, I don't know enough about, but I am not convinced. I'd like to see Bran win his (seat), with maybe one or two others from that party and see if they can sound sensible in Parliament over the next five years.

"Then perhaps see for the following election if they can offer more or win other credible candidates to their cause. I'd like to see change, but if it is wishy washy, then it is a waste of time. Faith in the people, which he drones on about, is a very, very vague term and means nothing. I'm always wary of fluff, too much talk of 'listening' and a speech without a clear and discernible plan of action.

"It is not enough to say that if you put the 'people first' everything will work out. Tyrants and leaders obsessed with their own charisma always talk most loudly about putting the people first and rarely manage to deliver anything of the kind," he said.

'Watching Jane' -- another blogger --added: "I like Bran as a person, but I must say I was not impressed by the speech, it lacked substance and was far too long!'

However there were also positive reviews of the DNA's launch from online viewers and those persons interviewed yesterday.

"Philosopher King" wrote that that the DNA is off to a good start, and "Androsian Finest" said that Mr McCartney needs to "work fast" and do what he needs to do because the FNM "is up to something."

"We in Andros have your back - we for you. DNA all the way! Last night was great," the blogger wrote.

Stanley Jackson Sr added that congratulations are in order for Mr McCartney and the DNA for their "overwhelmingly" successful launch.

"Never in Bahamian history has a third party garnered such huge support. Mr McCartney's delivery was excellent, well poised and answered every question necessary and more at this juncture as an introductory for the DNA. Indeed he offers hope Obama style . . . which is sorely needed in our country after 44 years of failure, rampant corruption, film flam, double talk, razzle dazzle and broken promises from the PLP and FNM who find themselves hopelessly compromised by special interest and unable to govern," he said.

May 14, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Can Branville McCartney succeed where Dr. Bernard J. Nottage failed?

As Third Parties Enter
The Bahama Journal Editorial

Third parties are today all the rage.



Some who now yearn to jump ship from this or that small third party’s helm are apparently concerned far more with burnishing their egos rather than with even trying to deal with the real issues that now face the Bahamian people.

Even now – we wait to hear, see and understand what difference any of these can reasonably make in the time left before general elections must be called.

No matter what some self-styled leaders might or might not do – when the rubber hits the road, the Bahamian people will have the last word.

While we do not expect it – we will not be particularly bent out of shape were some who now vie under this or that label that is neither PLP or FNM to do better than even they might now imagine.

Only time will tell if – this time around – they do better than all others that have ever sought to make a dent in a status quo that respects and reflects the joint-hegemony or rule of the Progressive Liberal Party and their nemeses in the Free National Movement.

These parties are today as they have always been: entities that bear all the markings of brothers in arms bent on running things in a place that is probably too small for both – and so they fight as they have been fighting for the past very many years.

That fight now pits two of Sir Lynden’s and Sir Cecil’s men against each other; wit their struggles mediated and oiled by money.

This is the backdrop against which the smaller and so-called "third parties must vie.

Interestingly enough, some of these efforts have been – from the get-go- little more than artfully constructed machinery designed to dupe gullible media.

In recent times, there has been one party that – at one time – seemed to be on track for making a difference that could have been decisive.

We refer to Dr. Bernard J. Nottage and his idea-rich Coalition for Democratic Reform.

As the record shows, the CDR’s leader was decisively beaten when he dared try and go up against this nation’s two largest and richest and best organized political machines.

When Dr. Nottage sought to lead the Progressive Liberal Party [from the inside, so to speak] he was again trounced.

In recent times, as Branville McCartney has tried to do what he thinks he must, the thought has apparently taken hold of him that he can succeed where Dr. Nottage failed.

As in the case of all others who are looking, we shall see what will become of this man’s dreams of greatness in a Bahamas where money talks and in which Big Money speaks really big.

In contradistinction to Dr. Nottage and his CDR, most of today’s so-called Third Party efforts seem to be built on little more than press releases, promises and artful grand-standing.

This stuff always borders on the farcical, particularly when some of those who would lead throw good money and bad to the winds.

Here media matters; and for sure, when media personnel starved for copy are prepared to ‘big up’ practically everybody who turns up wearing the legend that, they are leading this or that "party".

That we live in a media-saturated culture is self-evident. This is now so pervasive that there are now people who just love to see their names in print; and who know that the press will report their every word once they say that they are leading a party.

Making matters even worse has to do with the fact that practically every man and his uncle now have access to media that could broadcast their views to the world.

Whether these views are coherent or not, practically everyone can feast off some of that ego boost that comes with being known.

If they are agreed on anything, practically every man and every woman who would lead this or that so-called Third Party, is agreed that old folks should cede power to men and women who are either young or younger.

In more than one celebrated case of this ilk, there are men and women who have grown old waiting for their chance to take hold of the reins of power.

And then, there are some other men and women who have an appetite to be seen and heard and thought of as having something of the "visionary" sort to say about where this country of ours should be headed.

While some of these efforts are ‘slick’ enough in appearance, we fear that they will rise no higher than a proverbial lead balloon.

Time will tell and the Bahamian people will be heard.

May 11th, 2011

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Bahamas Blog International

It appears that there will be political bloodletting in Bamboo Town where the governing Free National Movement (FNM) and Official Opposition - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) plot to ambush Branville McCartney at the polls

Branville McCartney and the 2012 election

By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com




IN THE next general election, it appears that newly independent MP Branville McCartney and his purported new party are hoping that Bahamians are tired of playing musical chairs between the two major parties--FNM and PLP--and are more inclined to vote for, and even elect, a third party force. Frankly, our politically expedient culture, coupled with our more traditional Westminster system--where third parties are speedily dispatched to the political gallows and certain political death--dreams of a third party capturing the imagination of the masses are futile this electoral cycle, regardless of the false promises of support made by many fair-weather bandwagon riders in the months before the official campaigns/rallies kickoff.

Without a doubt, Mr McCartney is a self-styled populist whose recent resignation from the FNM--whilst expressing opposition to the BTC deal with Cable and Wireless Communications--has sent shock waves throughout the political sphere and wider Bahamian society. Indeed, whilst there are some who see McCartney's move as standing up for his beliefs and being demonstrative of him showing that he has heart and isn't merely a bootlicker, others see it as a display that is nothing short of full-blown, megalomaniacal grandstanding.

Contrary to the speculation regarding the BTC sale--where a widespread mutiny was rumoured to be in the works within the ranks of the FNM's Parliamentary caucus and was supposedly inclusive of Mr McCartney and three other FNM MPs--no such incident occurred. Whether the alleged MPs chickened out or not remains a mystery, however, there was no crescendo of voices--within the FNM, among the masses and, I'm told, not even among scores of the employees at BTC--absolutely rebuking the sale of the telecoms company.

Quite honestly, it appears that there will be a political bloodletting in Bamboo Town, with both the FNM and the PLP running candidates and plotting an ambush of Mr McCartney at the polls. With lots of finger-jabbing and verbal bricks being thrown, the contest for the Bamboo Town seat has quickly become a highly contentious matter, seemingly leaving McCartney at a political crossroads and facing a stormy, most combative political season that will see the electoral machinery of both major parties descend upon Bamboo Town.

According to some accounts, Mr McCartney's purported new entity--if it comes to fruition--could feature one or two political rejects who were cast off by the major parties due to character flaws and questionable dealings. Mr McCartney must be careful not to surround himself with shifty characters and sycophants and must, if he leads a new party, seek to establish a renewed sense of purpose and a coherent political philosophy that appeals to the national consciousness. So, is Bran McCartney close-up-ready? What are his views on the Bahamas' future?

It remains to be seen whether Bran McCartney's apparent out-performance of many of his former Cabinet colleagues was merely artificial hype and a fluke because he headed a highly emotive ministry--Immigration--or because he genuinely possessed ideas and leadership acumen. That said, in this upcoming election cycle, it appears the third party votes will merely tip the scale in favour of one of the major parties as opposed to the other, and not the third parties themselves. I'm doubtful that any of the current or yet-to-be-announced third parties in a general election have reached the stage where they would've encroached upon the percentage of any given party (FNM/PLP) to make people think that a third party is a force to be reckoned with.

Can Mr McCartney woo independent, non-ideological voters particularly in this age of identity politics? Will Mr McCartney's resignation and the impending showdown in Bamboo Town, coupled with the formation of a new party, expose him as having stepped into a pair of oversized shoes?

As good an MP as he appears to have been, will Mr McCartney find himself hopelessly in the political wilderness after the next election?

And, why didn't Mr McCartney own his political moment and vote no to the BTC sale whilst sitting as an FNM and then allow the FNM to expel him from the party? Why did he resign and walk out of Parliament instead of facing the music-- wouldn't that have had greater historical effect? No doubt, he would have gone down in history and become an even bigger political rock star.

Why didn't McCartney bring some of his Bamboo Town constituents with him to Parliament as a show of support for his vote on the BTC sale and his resignation from the FNM?

Indeed, it is true that some within the FNM are whooping and hollering now that Mr McCartney has divorced the party, particularly as he was a strong threat to their chances of ascending to the FNM leadership in the post-Ingraham era (likely 2017).

Has McCartney's political stock depreciated from self-inflicted wounds or is it just burgeoning?

Did McCartney buy into his own public relations?

Is the FNM's ongoing and much publicized response to Mr McCartney's resignation an indication of a seismic crack in their electoral machinery? Now that McCartney has abandoned the FNM, will he ever be catapulted into a much higher political stratosphere--that is, that of Prime Minister? Will Mr McCartney do a "Bernard Nottage" and abandon the proposed political entity and one day return to the FNM, this time to assume the party's leadership? Is McCartney's rumoured formation of a new party merely a vehicle to demonstrate his leadership abilities in hopes of impressing the internal machinery of the FNM and being invited back as their political saviour in 2017?

As I said in an earlier column, now that Bran McCartney has taken his fate into his own hands, if he remains an independent--a true independent--he's likely to still attract many marginal, non-ideological and independent-minded voters--a class of voters that's rapidly expanding with today's younger, more educated electorate.

Indeed, there remains a jingoistic adoration of the Bamboo Town MP. Moreover, Mr McCartney--regardless of the chair throwing and stirring dramatics at the FNM's recent town hall meeting in the constituency--has a sizeable FNM following and FNMs have, in the past, shown themselves willing to vote independent if they feel that the party didn't do the right thing. In this case, McCartney may not find that support as many FNMs feel like he walked out on them.

Frankly, Mr McCartney would likely suffer a political death if he joins another party--or perhaps forms his own--and thereby returns to the electorate after one term with another "label" attached.

Quite honestly, McCartney should postpone any plans for a third party and instead focus on winning his own seat!

Moreover, this political season Mr McCartney must avoid appearing like a disgruntled FNM and engaging in petty bickering, instead promulgating ideas and promoting national initiatives.

In Bamboo Town, he has demonstrated an ideal work ethic and has a body of work--within the constituency--to bolster his campaign. McCartney, among his constituents, is heralded as a hard worker, a young man who understands the true purpose of Parliamentary representation of his constituents.

Reliable sources have informed me that there are plans afoot to outfox Mr McCartney at the polls, writing him off as a showman, whose "groundless" braggadocio, will douse his electoral prospects and place him on a treadmill to oblivion whilst also serving as a teachable moment to a cadre of political newcomers. One FNM insider advised me to watch the "shifting landscape."

Bran McCartney must now wade through a political minefield and, as one who was once considered the future face of the FNM, his resignation has led to a man--who potentially could've risen to the leadership of the FNM--ushering himself out of the throne room.

Frankly, if Mr McCartney is relegated to the political dustbin following the next general election, he would be another politician crushed by the machinery of the major parties. However, if he wins, he's likely to be a force to be reckoned with, particularly if he articulates ideas and is not blinded by ego.

That said, if the Bahamas continues to be a red (FNM) and gold (PLP) state, young persons promoting change and aspiring for leadership may have to fight from within the internal structure of the major parties, seeking to convince council and executive members of the value of their candidacy and the importance of new ideas in advancing the country--unless, of course, there is a political revolution!


April 09, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Cassius Stuart's Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) merges with the governing Free National Movement (FNM) Party

BDM dissolves and merges with FNM


By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net



THE Bahamas Democratic Movement has officially been dissolved after a 13-year political run, announced former party president Cassius Stuart. Party representatives joined members of the Free National Movement yesterday to announce the merger of the two organisations.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, FNM leader, presented Mr Stuart with a membership card and welcomed the new members of the party. He said months of deliberation had led to this decision.

Mr Ingraham said he admired how "tenacious and focused" the BDM has been over the years. He said the party had a "consistent message" and was "doggard and determined."

He took delight in the fact that during the Elizabeth by-election, a BDM canvaser approached him in a barber shop on the campaign trail and tried to convince him to support the party.

The BDM was the most prominent third party in recent times. It contested 12 of the 40 parliamentary seats in the 2002 election. Mr Stuart was one of the founders in 1998. He was the BDM's candidate in the Elizabeth by-election last year.

Mr Stuart said the by-election was a "wake up call" that seriously challenged his views on the viability of a third party. He said the party decided it had to be "practical and pragmatic." He said the party has always wanted to make a contribution and decided to stop sitting on the sidelines.

"We have joined the FNM because we believe that this organization is willing to embrace new leadership, new vision and new energy. While we know that this decision may be troubling for some of our supporters, we want to assure you that we believe this decision is in the best interest of our membership and our country," said Mr Stuart.

Mr Stuart said the BDM was no longer interested in "talking about the problems." They wanted to engage in "solving the problems," the members of the party believed the FNM was the best party to accomplish that task.

There were "extensive" discussions with the FNM and PLP, said Mr Stuart; however, he said the FNM were more "timely" and presented "better opportunities" to fulfil the vision of the BDM and to "maximise the potential" of its members.

Some ten executive members of the BDM joined Mr Stuart at the FNM headquarters last night to make the announcement. Mr Stuart said all of the BDM, except one member, supported the party's decision.

"The discussions leading up to this decision have in no way been easy for us. After many months of discussions and deliberations and with much prayer and fasting, we find ourselves here today. We believe that the decision to join the FNM is the right one at the right time," said Mr Stuart.

"My message over the past decade has been adding value to the lives of every Bahamian. Moving forward, the Prime Minister has assured us that the next five years will be just that, building lives. Today as we embark on a new horizon, we are confident that this union will bring brighter days for every Bahamian. As a result, we know that The Bahamas will be a safer, cleaner, and better place to live in," he said.

Mr Stuart said the BDM and the FNM have become one organisation with the same vision, purpose and objective.

Under Mr Stuart's leadership, the BDM was a harsh critic of Prime Minister Ingraham and the FNM and former Prime Minister Perry Christie, leader of the Progressive Liberal Party, during successive terms of government.

The party's position on education states that both the FNM and PLP are "clear failures."

"It is safe to conclude that both the PLP and the FNM are major failures. The same problems that afflicted the FNM in education are the PLP's worst nightmare. The question is when will we get it right? From all indications neither Mr Ingraham nor Mr Christie has the answers. These two men must be judge based on their performance record not their political foolishness and the hand writing is clearly on the wall, they both have failed," states the BDM on the issue of education.

The party has similar critiques of the performance of the FNM and PLP on crime, defence, immigration, and the environment.

In 2001, Stuart and then deputy leader Omar Smith handcuffed themselves to the Mace in the House of Assembly in protest against the "unfair gerrymandering of the constituency boundaries by the FNM administration."

They were jailed for almost two days, although no charges were brought against them, according to the party's historical account of its formation.

Over the past 11 years, Mr Stuart said his efforts were guided by a message that is entrenched in the BDM constitution: "No man, woman or child shall ever be slave or bondsman to anyone or their labour exploited or their lives frustrated by deprivation". He said this message has been "embraced" by the FNM.

In the coming days, Mr Stuart said he would file a formal application to the FNM to be nominated as a candidate in the next general election. He said no promises were made for future candidacy, but assurances were given that the former BDM members would be a part of making sure the Bahamas is a better place.

April 14, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International