Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) goons and idiots defacing and destroying the Free National Movement's (FNM's) signs and posters

By Dennis Dames



The defacement and destruction of FNM posters and signs could be noticed throughout the island of New Providence. On my way out of my community of Mt. Pleasant Village today, I have noticed that the sign and posters of the FNM leader, and candidate have been knocked totally out of the ground and smashed.


This is a reflection of the high levels of stupidity and wrong acts that plague our nation today. One must ask the question: Do we really want to elect a party of goons and idiots to lead us for the next five years?

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) refuses to shed its image as a criminal and thug organization which would resort to all manner of illegal tactics to win an election. The more we observe the ruin of the Free National Movement’s posters and signs on the streets of New Providence, the less we should consider the PLP as a viable alternative to govern our great nation.

Yes, anti-social behavior seems to be the PLP’s most desired method to win the government of The Bahamas in this election cycle; and God help us if they succeed. It is this writer’s view that the Bahamian electorate should send a strong message to the PLP on Election Day and vote against their foolishness and outright illicit ploys.

The PLP leader seems as usual to be not in control of his organization and members. Is the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) really serious about being a competitor in this 2012 election? If so, then - they must believe that all Bahamians are azzes.

Mr. Perry Christie, Leader of the Progressive Liberal Party – must publicly and seriously condemn his unhelpful supporters in the interest of good sense and leadership; or else watch his organization descend to the debts of political unattractiveness and public scorn.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

In our current political system, where party politics takes precedence over true representational politics ...where there are few benchmarks to truly differentiate candidates or parties ...we are confronted with several negative side effects: namely, the emergence of a politics of personality ...instead of a politics of ideas and action ...or personal accountability

Overcoming The Party Allegiance


.
TALKING SENSE
By KHALILA NICOLLS

khalilanicolls@gmail.com

tribune242



I STARTED this campaign cycle annoyed by the fact that Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham's faces were plastered all over my constituency, considering I live far from North Abaco and far from Centreville, where these men, both leaders of their respective political parties, are offering themselves as candidates in the May 7 general election.

I was fighting hard to hold on to the principled view that party credentials should not take precedence over candidate credentials, because in our democratic system of representational politics, my vote is supposed to represent the individual vying in my constituency whom I deem best to represent my voice. That principled view calls me to consider each representative without reference to political party propaganda.

I have resigned myself from that utopian view, once and for all, for the following reasons: members of parliament do not represent the voices of the people, they represent the voices of their party; and members of parliament have no power to affect change, unless they are in the inner circles of influence in their political parties.

Further, we exist in a democracy where choice is a contest between "worse and worser", where most candidates, across party lines, are ideologically identical.

And last, but not least, I have the unfortunate misfortune of finding among all of the candidates, few who identify with critical visions that I have of myself as a Bahamian. I plan to tackle my first two concerns in the first of this two-part series.

In our two-party political system (no offence to the DNA and the rest of them), constituency representatives no more represent my voice than they do the voice of their rivals. How could they, when they barely represent their own voices?

How many times have you seen a member of parliament stand up for a personal belief that conflicted with a party's position? Even where they do so in private circles, rarely do they step into the public spotlight, exposing their party to such scrutiny.

In our political system, power is confined to a small inner circle of people with influence. Anyone with status, outside the circle, is a mere puppet, and all others are mere pawns. It seems like a cynical view of our democracy, but experience proves it every time.

Is this healthy for our democracy? No. Is this our reality? Yes. Members of parliament pledge an unspoken allegiance to their political parties, and they take that vow more seriously than any responsibility to be a true representative of the people who put them in office.

Very few MPs, if any at all, organise meaningful community engagements on issues of national importance before they stand up in the House of Assembly to spout off impassioned party positions. How exactly do they represent the voices of the community, if they have no relationship with their communities?

Members of Parliament are infamously absent from constituency offices. In fact, outside of the election cycle, constituency offices are inactive black holes.

It is not that members of parliament serve no purpose; they simply serve a purpose other than that which we wish they would or should.

As private citizens, at some point we need start questioning this notion of representational politics, so we can collectively figure out a better way to extract value, not ham and turkey, from the political leaders who form our government and claim to represent our voices. Because, quite frankly, I am tired of smoking the dreams they are selling.

Members of Parliament, and not just those in opposition, constantly cry about their inability to access the resources of the government to affect change at the constituency level. It is not entirely their fault: our MPs have been trained to be professional beggars of government hand-outs in a system that was not designed to support that sort of representation.

On the other hand, our MPs make themselves impotent, because they have no other concept of their own capacity to represent.

Our political system only supports our development at the constituency level when our community interests are already aligned with the political plans of those with power and influence. If a constituency priority is on the government's agenda, all is well, and you can be sure that initiative is advancing the agenda of a political party, in some form or fashion. If not, then 'dog nyam ya supper'.

V Alfred Gray, MP for MICAL, is a case in point. He routinely comes to the House of Assembly with impassioned whining, and he calls that representation. Most times, his cries fall on deaf ears. And even when the government acts in the interest of Mr Gray's constituents, more than likely, it has nothing to do with Mr Gray, and everything to do with the government's own agenda. The recently passed the Mayaguana Development Bill is a prime example.

For our democracy to grow and to work for its people, we need to develop a new concept of representational politics: one that does not involve delusional ideas that our members of parliament actually represent our voices, or have any real power.

Members of Parliament are instruments of political parties, seeking to acquire and maintain power to satisfy their own interests. We get lucky when those interests align with our own, and when they serve the greater good.

For the sake of imagining, I propose a more practical and useful concept of representational politics that envisions members of parliament more as community organisers and accountable community leaders, which would require no hand-outs from the government, or huge capital investments. It would require vision, leadership, commitment, concern, community engagement and the capacity to mobilise resources in the interest of communities.

I envision a system where our idea of democracy is bigger than our concept of a vote every five years in a general election; where our political representatives are accountable to their communities and not their political parties.

In our current system, where party politics takes precedence over true representational politics, where there are few benchmarks to truly differentiate candidates or parties, we are confronted with several negative side effects: namely, the emergence of a politics of personality, instead of a politics of ideas and action, or personal accountability.

Candidates hide behind parties and parties hide behind their leaders, which leaves party leaders to engage in childhood play to prove who the best is. Our candidates and the parties have an important characteristic in common: they both have an impoverished vision of democracy and national development; and sadly, their equality shields them from scrutiny.

The country believes it is gearing up for a general election, but what is really taking shape is a personality contest, a battle of two politically savvy wits.

More next time, as I continue my examination of voting for the party or the person with the case of Nassau Village.

Talkin Sense explores issues of race, culture, politricks and identity. Pan-African writer and cultural scholar Noelle Khalila Nicolls is a practising journalist in the Bahamas.


April 12, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

To those who did not register to vote in the upcoming general election: ...It is clear that you never really wanted to... The politicians, public officials, the media and everybody else, urged you to register... Yet, you did not... The ability to vote is a privilege many fought and died for

It is now voting time

thenassauguardian editorial

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham announced yesterday at his party’s beach event that he will inform the country today of the election date.

Ingraham said he will first meet with his Cabinet this morning and a statement will be made by 1 p.m. regarding the next election.  The prime minister also said he will make a national address at 8 p.m. about his party’s term in office and the upcoming election.

“The real bell will ring tomorrow,” Ingraham told thousands of Free National Movement (FNM) supporters yesterday at Montagu Beach.

Ingraham said he hopes voters will be satisfied with the performance of his party this term.  The FNM led the country through the financial crisis of 2008, which led to the worst recession since the Great Depression.  The effects of that recession are still being felt in The Bahamas.  The country’s unemployment rate remains above 15 percent.

“We did the best we could in very difficult circumstances and we believe that the population will accept that we did as much as was possible,” Ingraham said.

In this election the FNM’s main challenger is the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).  Its leader last night at his party’s beach event told PLPs not to “slacken up” but to continue to push hard for a victory after Ingraham calls the next general election.

“For us to win, we must demonstrate that we are prepared to work and to work hard,” said Christie at the Western Esplanade near Arawak Cay.

Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel said recently the number of registered voters has exceeded 170,000 – the largest voter register in Bahamian history.

In the weeks to come in the official campaign, Ingraham and Christie will push with all they have left to be declared winner on Election Day.  The veteran leaders are likely in their last election campaign and neither wants to retire a loser.

Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) will do all they can to play spoiler.  The DNA is seeking to create a third way in a country that has essentially only welcomed two parties at a time in its independent history.

What Bahamians must remember in the weeks to come is that this is the people’s time.  After five years of evaluating the government and the opposition, it is time to choose.  No party has the right to be in power.  They must earn our trust.  No leader has the right to lead.  He must prove he is good enough to be in charge and make tough decisions in tough times.  The country needs strong decisive leadership to help resolve many of the problems that make The Bahamas dysfunctional at this time.

For those who did not get to register and who will not get to vote, it is clear that you never really wanted to.  The politicians, public officials, the media and everybody else, urged you to register.  Yet, you did not.  The ability to vote is a privilege many fight and die for.

Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma has spent much of her life in jail fighting for democracy in her country.  Yet we have people here who will not even register to vote.  This is sad.

We must take seriously our democratic responsibilities and participate.  For those who are registered, read a little more these next few weeks; have debates with friends and family; listen to the politicians.  You must be the judge in this contest.  Be informed so you can make an informed decision.

Apr 10, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

CircleVision Financial Planning (CFAL) on the Progressive Liberal Party's (PLP’s) plan to tackle the mortgage ‘crisis’ in The Bahamas

On the PLP’s plan to tackle the mortgage ‘crisis’

CFAL Economic view

At the center of the 2008 global crisis was the mortgage debacle. The U.S. government funded mortgage agencies that provided funding for residential mortgages, which in most cases, the mortgagee was not able to afford. The end results were foreclosures and a depressed housing market — now headed into its fifth year.

As we all know, in the absence of a holistic economic plan The Bahamas continues to depend on the success — or lack thereof — of the U.S. economy.  The Bahamas is now experiencing what the U.S. experienced back in 2008 in the mortgage market as a result of lenient lending practices. To fix the core of this problem we need policies that are realistic, achievable and measurable.

After reading the article “PLP to tackle mortgage ‘crisis’” in Monday’s Nassau Guardian, we felt compelled to provide some thoughtful analysis on the matter.  We hold no political brief for any party, but as a financial research and investment company we have a professional and civic duty to opine on ideas which may impact our clients in particular or, as in this case, ideas which we think could adversely impact the Bahamian economy in the short and long term.

While the idea of providing relief for peoples having a difficult time meeting their mortgage obligations is arguably a good one, and one which we support, we have serious questions on some of the specifics outlined in the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) proposal as reported in The Guardian.

In order to place our argument in context, you may recall that our company argued against the loose monetary policy back in 2005-2006, when financial institutions and developers were very lax in their lending policies. We saw double digit credit growth and warned this would come back to haunt us in a very negative way. The loans default crisis (including mortgages) of which we spoke has arrived.

As regards the solution to the ‘crisis’ proposed by the PLP, there are several points that we support: the idea of extending “first time homeowners” stamp duty exemption to people who have lost their homes to foreclosure and are trying to purchase a new home; the argument for some form of review of finance charges and related fees; the regulation of “unregulated lenders”; and the proposal to, “bring under stricter control and supervision the system of salary deduction”. We agree with the PLP that this is being abused by some lending institutions.

Concerns about the plan

Our greater concerns are related to the other recommendations in the proposal.

In a democracy it is not prudent for the government to mandate any financial institution to do anything. The shareholders, directors and management decide what course of action should be taken.

Governments and financial services regulators (central banks) sometimes resort to “moral suasion” in a credit crisis in order to try and persuade financial institutions to provide relief to mortgage payers. Alternatively, monetary policy initiatives by the Central Bank in the form of interest rate deductions are applied to solve the issue of mortgage delinquency.

That course of action, particularly with respect to our current predicament, is likely to be ineffective in and of itself.  It is our view that a holistic plan is needed.  A plan that will examine the likely outcomes and impact on all stakeholders in order to avoid unintended consequences.

By way of example, the recent reduction in prime rate caused serious issues for pensioners, insurance liabilities and National Insurance in terms of matching long term liability obligations.

While the government’s debt obligations may have benefitted from the reductions, the real intended beneficiaries — those who are already in significant arrears — did not and will not benefit from the initiative. The unintended was the increase liability obligations by National Insurance, insurance companies and defined benefit pension plans.

What people need are jobs. Merely dropping interest rates or guaranteeing interest payments will not cause lenders to extend credit, especially since the creditworthiness of many borrowers was and still is slipping.  In the case of new or revised loans at the lower rate, the average monthly benefit will not make much of a difference to the borrower.

The suggestion that a financial institution would simply write off 100 percent of the provisions is impractical at best.

Financial institutions are in business to return a profit to its shareholders. Further, the fact that these amounts are written off today does not preclude the financial institution from attempting to collect on the amounts written off sometime in the future when the circumstances of the borrower might have changed more favorably.

Provisioning for bad debts is an accounting requirement — nothing more, nothing less. As regards the suggestion that the government would take a lien over the property, we do not see how this is possible given that the financial institution already has a lien over the property.

As for the government paying the interest of the delinquent mortgages, while this is a noble idea it is also not practicable and could encourage irresponsible future behavior.

Why would anyone who is current on their mortgage continue to pay if the government would step in and pay the interest for five years? This could have far-reaching consequences unless, of course, we have misunderstood this suggestion.

We are concerned about whether anyone attempted to do the math and cost-out the proposal to see if we, an already debt-laden country, could afford this ambitious proposal.

Has anyone given consideration to the moral hazard?

The cost

Let’s see how much this will cost the people of The Bahamas.

Total Bahamas domestic credit was approximately $7.103 billion at the end of February. Loans or mortgages with maturity over 10 years stood at $4.639 billion. Mortgages outstanding was $3.090 billion with total private sector loans in arrears of $1.159 billion. Total mortgage arrears stood at $619.6 million.

Assuming the estimated proposed interest rate of 5.75 percent (again we do not know how the government proposed to do this in a capitalistic society, but accepting the proposal as is) this would translate into an additional annual commitment by the government of $35.63 million or $178.14 million over five years.

With what is essentially “free money” until 2017, those who are current on their mortgages would elect to stop paying since the government would be obliged to pay their interest until 2017.  They would receive two benefits: a reduction from the average rates of 7.77 percent to 5.75 percent (an immediate savings of over two percent); and to have the government pay the interest until 2017.

It would be logical and indeed quite smart for everyone to stop paying their mortgages for the next five years and have the government pay on their behalf. This would translate into an annual cost of over $266.7 million per year in interest payments (more than the government’s current debt service commitments) or $1.335 billion over five years.

All of this would further increase our debt to GDP ratio, which everyone is concerned about. What happens after 2017 if the economy does not turn around and continues to muddle through? We submit that given the current economic climate as well as the projected growth trajectory, it is highly unlikely that The Bahamas could afford this expenditure, unless we are able to grow the economy (provide more jobs) in the order of 10 percent per annum.

With reference to the suggestion that financial institutions extend maturity on the existing mortgages, as far as our research suggests, this is presently being done. With respect to using pension assets, again for the most part, this is being done already.

The reality however, is that less than 30 percent of companies in The Bahamas have a pension plan, so again, while a noble idea in the absence of pension legislation this will not result in any immediate assistance to the people it is intended for. Perhaps the idea of some form of mandatory pension may be considered to reduce the reliance on National Insurance in the future.

We again state, for the record, that this commentary is not politically motivated. We are simply interested in good economic policies which will further enhance the well-being of all citizens and permanent residents of The Bahamas. What we do not wish to see is capital being inadvertently driven away because of some ill-advised economic policy.

The Bahamas has any number of financial institutions which are ready, willing and able to provide advice on economic matters of national importance. This being one such matter, we felt compelled to present our views and to encourage political parties to consider stress testing some of their ideas that have been proposed so that we can navigate the future from an informed position.

CFAL is a sister company of The Nassau Guardian under the AF Holdings Ltd. umbrella.  CFAL provides investment management, research, brokerage and pension services.  For comments, please contact CFAL at: column@cfal.com

Apr 04, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Dr. Victor Cooper of New Bethany Baptist Cathedral urged the nation’s leaders to put the issue of gambling to a referendum ...and determine ways to tax the dozens of numbers houses that are in business throughout The Bahamas

Pastors urge action on gambling

Numbers houses come under fire

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

A Baptist pastor yesterday urged the nation’s leaders to put the issue of gambling to a referendum and determine ways to tax the dozens of numbers houses that are in business.

Dr. Victor Cooper of New Bethany Baptist Cathedral made the call at a press conference with other religious leaders held to discuss crime.

“Let the people make a decision because the reality is, and sometimes we overlook this aspect of it, these gambling houses are making a lot of money and not paying any taxes whatsoever,” Cooper said.

“There must be some serious consideration given again to the whole issue of gambling with the electorate making a decision as to whether or not this is the way we want to go and then how does the country benefit in return from all the money being expended.”

Bishop Walter Hanchell, president of Great Commission Ministries, said it is time for the country to stop being politically correct about gambling and tackle the social issue head on.

“We have developed into a gambling culture where it is now almost acceptable to gamble. We say that gambling is illegal except for the casinos, but these gambling houses have licenses to operate and they are operating right in front of the police blatantly,” he said.

“We must address it because drugs and gambling are related; in my opinion they all are criminal acts. We need to stop trying to be politically correct and deal with these social issues in the right way.”

Hanchell added that while he is morally opposed to gambling he sees it as a discriminatory practice to allow foreigners to gamble legally in the country while Bahamian citizens cannot.

“I stopped gambling 30 years ago,” he said.  “I don’t support gambling in any form, but it is wrong to allow a foreigner to have any rights in a country where the citizens don’t have the same right and privilege. That is discrimination against your own people.”

Earlier on in its current term, the Ingraham administration considered the question of legalizing numbers houses, but eventually shelved the idea, promising instead to hold a referendum if it is successful at the next general election.

The issue has been a prickly one for successive governments, which have faced strong objections from the church at any hint of legalizing gambling for Bahamians.

Yesterday, the pastors also decried the current levels of crime and violence in the country and called on their counterparts from other churches to reach out to troubled members of the community.

“Murders are becoming an epidemic. Our leaders, church [and] community must come up with solutions to bring murders to an end,” Hanchell said.

Senior Pastor of New Covenant Baptist Church Bishop Simeon Hall said drugs, gambling, alcoholism and the decay of the family structure are all to blame for the current crime crisis.

So far this year, 31 murders have been recorded in The Bahamas.

Up to this point last year, 37 murders were recorded.

Apr 05, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

EVERY time I hear of the latest escapade of John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons in London... I think of dear old Alvin Braynen, the political enigma elevated to the Speaker’s chair by Lynden Pindling ...45 years ago

Disdain For Mr 'Squeaker'

MARQUIS at LARGE


By JOHN MARQUIS
tribune242


WHAT is it about Speakers of the House that makes them so pompous? First, there was Alvin Braynen of the Bahamas House of Assembly. Now there is John Bercow of the British House of Commons. JOHN MARQUIS reports...

EVERY time I hear of the latest escapade of John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons in London, I think of dear old Alvin Braynen, the political enigma elevated to the Speaker’s chair by Lynden Pindling 45 years ago.

Bercow – dubbed Squeaker Bercow by a columnist in the Daily Mail – is the little man with the very big ego who presides like a martinet over debates in the most hallowed parliamentary chamber in the world.

Since ascending to the Speaker’s chair two years ago, he has managed to upset almost everyone with his insufferable, self-preening pomposity, lambasting MPs from on high, glorying in his status as the parliamentary kingpin and attracting harsh criticism for his alleged political bias during debates.

Apart from former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, bumptious, bombastic Bercow is leading contender for the least enviable title in British politics – The Most Thoroughly Disliked Person in Westminster.

With his irritatingly officious manner, his peremptory treatment of colleagues, his palpable smugness and nauseating self-regard, Bercow is the kind of man everyone desperately wants to see fall flat on his face right in the middle of a nationally televised parliamentary procession.

With his towering wife Sally – an even more accomplished self-publicist than Bercow himself – Squeaker completes a double act of a kind rarely seen in the upper echelons of British politics. Little John and Long Tall Sally have become the biggest laugh in town. But not everyone sees the joke.

Bercow first drew attention to himself by refusing to wear the customary Speaker’s wig. Then he upset former Tory backbench colleagues by seemingly refusing to “see” them during debates, denying them the opportunity to speak.

More recently, he has been taken to task for being unduly harsh towards those not in his favour, and noticeably accommodating to those who are. He is often under the hammer for shouting down MPs he deems to be in breach of minor procedural niceties.

Last week, he was back in the news for allegedly patronising the Queen during an official speech, watched with growing discomfort and distaste by Prime Minister David Cameron, who is thought to detest Bercow with a passion.

To make matters worse, he referred to Her Majesty as a “kaleidoscope Queen”, leaving onlookers to ponder his meaning. Could it be that Elizabeth the Second was changing colour ¬– from white to pink to red to purple (with rage) – right in front of his very eyes?

If there is one thing Britain’s coalition government agrees upon, it is that this “appalling little man” – the term used in a Daily Mail headline – is sent packing as soon as the opportunity presents itself. The consensus is that Bercow is a disaster and therefore must go.

Now let’s flash back 45 years to 1967 when one Alvin Braynen was allowed to preside over the Bahamas House of Assembly for the first time.

He attained his lifelong ambition after throwing his seat behind Pindling when the major parties tied in the memorable election of January 10 that year.

Along with Labour leader Randol Fawkes, he – an independent – was in a position to tip the balance of power in the PLP’s favour if the inducements were attractive enough.

As we all know, one of Pindling’s strengths as a leader was his ability to tap into the egos of his supporters. He knew where all their narcissistic buttons were and exactly when to push them.

When Pindling phoned Braynen in search of his support, and began his conversation with “Good evening, Mr Speaker”, Braynen fell into his lap like a shot grouse.

Such was the vanity of the man, the soaring sense of self-importance, the irresistible desire for a place in Bahamian political history that he could barely wait to get into his sagging wig, black breeches, silken knee-stockings and buckled shoes to start lording it over the Assembly.

Braynen, you may recall, was an off-white son of The Current, Eleuthera, who was actually a UBP parliamentarian when I first arrived in the Bahamas in 1966.

He never quite fitted the image of the Bay Street Boys of the day, and never looked comfortable alongside the likes of Stafford Sands, George Baker, Roy Solomon and Foster Clarke, all UBP stalwarts with an unwavering dislike of the PLP.

His decision to contest his seat as an independent in 1967 surprised no-one. To his credit, his supporters forsook party allegiances and stuck with the man. It’s a decision many of them came to regret.

When Braynen backed Pindling over Sir Roland Symonette’s UBP, he earned his place in history and the eternal disapproval of his former parliamentary colleagues. It is literally true to say that, without his blessing, Pindling would not have been able to achieve “majority rule” at that time.

Thus, in one move, Braynen became a champion of the common man, a party “traitor”, and the ultimate symbol of parliamentary authority. The UBP misfit had “made it” in his own eyes to reach the one position he coveted above all.

What was obviously good news for Braynen proved to be bad news for me.

For no sooner had he attained high office than he was using his new found power to persecute the cussed young political reporter from The Nassau Guardian. I had the dubious honour of becoming the first journalist in living memory to be barred from House of Assembly proceedings.

At the time, the Guardian, then a fervent UBP supporter, felt mightly aggrieved over what they saw as Braynen’s betrayal of their cause. The paper seemed hell-bent on making him pay.

When Braynen, during one of his first parliamentary debates in the Speaker’s chair, asked the public gallery to talk “subduedly”, the Guardian’s leader writer of the day swooped on him like a falcon on a day-old chick.

Poor old Alvin, squinting myopically from under his wig, became known as “Subduedly” Braynen from that day forth, an insult he felt demeaned his office and besmirched the Assembly. He struck back with the full force of his newly-acquired authority.

When I turned up to cover the following week’s hearing, the sergeant at arms was waiting at the door to turn me away. I was, he told me, officially barred from covering proceedings until the Guardian had published a fulsome apology.

“Who says so?” I asked, knowing full well who was responsible.

“The Speaker of the Honourable House of Assembly,” he said.

Thus, Alvin Braynen began his career as parliamentary overlord by excluding an important segment of the Bahamian media from reporting the speeches of its readers’ elected representatives.

Irked by the Guardian’s insulting behaviour, Braynen became increasingly dismissive of the press as he presided over parliamentary affairs. Dislike of reporters became a common feature of his incumbency. Like Squeaker Bercow, he became more and more puffed-up with every pronouncement he made, strutting around like a wood pigeon in mating mode.

From the Speaker’s chair, his voice became noticeably more sonorous, his manner increasingly overbearing, and his self-importance embarrassingly more pronounced.

When I see Bercow hectoring MPs today, I am reminded of Alvin “Subduedly” Braynen, with his all-knowing asides from on high.

Does the Speaker’s chair create pompous men? Or is pomposity a prerequisite of the job?

Either way, Squeakers Bercow and Braynen used the position to imprint themselves on the public consciousness. It’s hard to imagine they would have done so in any other way.

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Many of the progressive dreams of Edmund Moxey and others were interwoven with the struggle for majority rule and became synonymous with the early Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)... It is telling, therefore, that the majority of those elected in 1967 as a part of the first PLP government eventually left the party... including Ed Moxey

Jumbey Village – Montage of a Dream Deferred

Front Porch

By Simon

Edmund Moxey’s contribution to the social, cultural, economic and political advancement of Bahamians found magnificent expression in Jumbey Village.  The new documentary on the creation and destruction of Jumbey Village chronicles some of our post-independence history.

Some of the dreams of Ed Moxey became manifest.  Still, many of his dreams were deferred, like a raisin in the sun, calling to mind the memorable poem by Langston Hughes.  In his book-length poem suite, “Montage of a Dream Deferred”, Hughes asks, What happens to a dream deferred?

“Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore– And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over– like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?”

Many of the progressive dreams of Edmund Moxey and others were interwoven with the struggle for majority rule and became synonymous with the early Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). It is telling, therefore, that the majority of those elected in 1967 as a part of the first PLP government eventually left the party, including Ed Moxey.

Over the years other progressives left, including Dr. B. J. Nottage who later returned to the PLP, and Hubert Ingraham who did not. The PLP today is a shadow of its progressive roots. Its core leadership is non-progressive and reactionary, constantly stymieing the progressives in the party.

The National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) was formalized in 1959 as a pressure group within the PLP to bolster the party’s progressive agenda and the struggle for majority rule.  The NCPA proved successful in its efforts, playing a pivotal role in the electoral success of the PLP.

Yet, the group’s ambitions were greater than winning an election.  With the majority secured they intended to transform life for the mass of Bahamians.  Some of their ideals were secured by the PLP, such as independence, the creation of various national institutions and early strides in areas such as education.

Disillusioned

Still, many of the progressives in the PLP, including much of the core of the NCPA, became quickly disillusioned by the cult of personality emerging around Sir Lynden Pindling, which was antithetical to their vision of collegiality.  The progressives were also troubled over the foot-dragging on urgent needs such as the urban redevelopment of Over-the-Hill.

Jumbey Village and other community projects were a part of Ed Moxey’s dream for the economic, social and cultural self-empowerment of Bahamians.  The physical demolition of Jumbey Village was emblematic of many other progressive dreams which were destroyed and denied by a once progressive PLP that lost its bearings and became enamored of power for its own sake.

It is one of those twists of history that some progressive movements which uproot the reigning oligarchy begin to mimic the very system they replace.  The PLP began mimicking the culture of economic and political entitlement of the Old Guard.  Today’s PLP Black Knights are in some ways yesterday’s Bay Street Boys.  They constitute the new oligarchy.

The rump of the old UBP did join the nascent Free National Movement (FNM).  But the core leadership of the FNM were among the more committed progressives and even so-called radicals who sacrificed much to bring about Majority Rule.

The departure of the Dissident Eight left the PLP less progressive, more reactionary, and engulfed by Sir Lynden’s cult of personality.  One prominent observer and politician remarked at the departure of the Dissident Eight that the party was losing its soul.

The brain trust of intellectually-gifted individuals who left the PLP included men with impeccable progressive credentials and commitment to the movement like Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield, Warren Levarity, Sir Arthur Foulkes, Dr. Curtis McMillan and Carlton Francis.  The haemorrhage continued with the culturally-inspired Edmund Moxey and peaked with the departure of Hubert Ingraham.

Over the course of its 25-year rule the PLP became stagnant in terms of its intellectual culture, policies and programs.  The dream of the urban redevelopment of Over-the-Hill died.  This included the innovative urban and infrastructural plans by Columbia University and others, as well as the urgent need to upgrade the sewerage system Over-the-Hill.

Much of today’s urban plight and blight is the consequence of the failure to act by successive Pindling administrations. There were some efforts, but no real plan for transforming the urban landscape of traditional grassroots neighborhoods.  When Sir Lynden left office after a quarter century there were residents Over-the-Hill still relying on outside toilets.

The Urban Renewal program of the Christie government included a number of good elements.  Still, the program was a hodgepodge of ideas dating to the administrations of Sir Lynden and Mr. Ingraham. Mr. Christie’s efforts were welcome. But they were neither groundbreaking nor truly transformative.

Reactionary

Perry Christie has not proven to be a progressive.  Worse, he has demonstrated a reactionary worldview.  He is an ardent supporter of the death penalty.  In terms of economic policy Mr. Christie seems stuck in the past with an outdated mindset for economic development.

He advocated the large-scale anchor project concept of a by-gone era including the outrageous Mayaguana land giveaway.  He agreed to give Baha Mar far more concessions than any Bahamian government should have countenanced.

Mr. Christie successfully campaigned to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment to secure equality for women in terms of automatically passing on a certain right of citizenship.  Yet when he had a chance to make this right he did not reach for a legacy.

And he failed to introduce National Health Insurance.  It would have been a landmark accomplishment for him and the progressive movement.  Though Mr. Christie once served as minister of health, it was an Ingraham administration that significantly advanced access to free pre- and post-natal care for pregnant women.

Nor did Mr. Christie advance any major infrastructural projects Over-the-Hill.  Following the recent massive water works a lower income senior citizen in her 70s remarked favorably about the clear water gushing out of her pipes.  She has lived in Grants Town her entire life and has always voted PLP.   She never thought she would live to see the day when she would get that kind of water pressure  and clean water in Grants Town.

She is thankful to the government.  But she will never vote for the FNM. Better said, she will never vote against the PLP.   The pull is visceral, almost religious in nature.  It combines the iconography of Sir Lynden as Moses and the theme of liberation from Exodus in the Hebrew Scriptures.

For some, the idea of voting against the PLP is a betrayal of their self-identification as a black Bahamian.  This individual and social psychology is not only a Bahamian phenomenon.

Dependency

It is a mindset that behavioral and social psychologists as well as political scientists and sociologists have studied in many cultures.  It often involves a cycle of dependency and strong identification by some with a strongman leader, powerful organization or power structure.

In failing to transform Over-the-Hill during its 25 years in office, the PLP in significant ways betrayed many of its core grassroots supporters.  It is an observable fact that both Sir Lynden and Perry Christie failed to significantly improve conditions in South Andros, and Centreville and Farm Road respectively over the many years they represented these constituencies.

This, despite serving in government for decades, and as prime minister.  It is in marked contrast to the work Prime Minister Ingraham has done to dramatically upgrade the public amenities and services throughout Abaco.

Though the PLP created important national institutions, it generally failed to do likewise when it came to national cultural institutions.  In the post-independence period when Bahamians were forming a greater sense of national and cultural identity, important cultural institutions were absent.

Such centers of critical consciousness and cultural expression are necessary for nation-building.  Their absence during that formative period helped to retard our national development.

It was not until the FNM came to office that core institutions such as the National Art Gallery, the Antiquities, Monuments and Museum Corporation, the National Museum, and the Centre for Performing Arts were launched.  There is much work to be done to advance the missions and the reach of these institutions.  But they represent impressive strides.

So too are ideas recently advanced by Mr. Ingraham including a heritage tourism initiative, a public arts project, a parks and recreation authority and an oral history project, ‘Our Bahamian Stories’.

These all contain elements of Edmund Moxey’s dream.  But his dream is bigger still. He understood early that a place like Jumbey Village could help us to raise our children and uplift the Bahamian people.

There is planned for Big Pond a regional park.  Might the plans for that park include elements of the original concept for Jumbey Village?  The best way to honor Edmund Moxey is not solely in tributes.  The better way would be to revitalize and institutionalize his dreams.

Though the fruits of some of his dreams were destroyed, the seeds of his vision are still alive and can bear fruit.  It is possible to transform a dream deferred into realized hopes.  But it is too bad that we had to wait for so much to explode around us before we remembered the vitality and the urgency of the dreams of patriots like Ed Moxey.

Apr 03, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International