Thanks to the foresight of our Bahamian constitutional fathers who adeptly negotiated with the British, The Bahamas is now a modern, stable, successful parliamentary democracy

Understanding Bahamian parliamentary democracy

Front Porch

Today, 45 years to the day of the attainment of majority rule, there is chronic and widespread ignorance of our system of government and national constitution.  Sadly, no longer surprisingly, so-called “informed” people in civil society, academia, business and “the press corps” are among the woefully uninformed.

Many of them regurgitate effluvia on the supposed problems of our parliamentary democracy on matters ranging from “checks and balances” to collective responsibility and the constitutional powers of the prime minister.

Mesmerized by American politics including the theatrics that substitute for news on U.S. cable news, some local commentators cannot utter “checks” without mindlessly adding “balances”, with seemingly limited appreciation for either term.

The supposed corrective measures to repair our supposedly broken democracy are, to paraphrase attorney Andrew Allen in the context of shallow arguments for term limits, superficial non-solutions to imaginary problems.

One recent and egregious example is an opinion piece entitled, “The Bahamas: A Constitutional Dictatorship?”  The commentary is callow.  It lacks depth and breadth.  One wonders how conversant the columnist is with the Bahamian constitution, our constitutional history and the rudimentary history and philosophy of parliamentary democracy.

Noise

It is important to have a diversity of opinion on the issues of the day.  But opinion devoid of or sloppy with facts, by personalities helping to form the opinions of others through talk radio, television, the Internet and in the print media, is just more noise.  Public dialogue is impoverished not enriched when opinions are divorced from critical thinking and fact-finding.

The column in question descended into unthinking rhetoric and a cavalcade of contradictions partly because it was based on and began with false premises, so nauseatingly repeated that they have become accepted as fact:

“We have an anachronistic, colonial governance system that is no longer suitable for the needs of our developing nation in this 21st century.  We inherited this Westminster system of governance from the British.”

It is difficult to take seriously opinions that get basic facts wrong.  To discuss the issue of governance we need to get our language and concepts in order.  The appellation Westminster system of governance is not quite precise and misses some critical differences between Bahamian and British parliamentary democracy.

For instance, at Westminster the British parliament is sovereign.  There is no supreme law or written constitution in Britain.  By a simple majority of parliament in Britain fundamental rights can be altered and the monarchy itself can be abolished.

The Bahamas has a written constitution with clearly defined checks on power.  Before certain fundamental provisions of the constitution (entrenched and specially entrenched) can be changed, a two-thirds or three-quarters majority vote of both Houses of Parliament is required.

Furthermore, the proposed changes must be approved by the electorate in a referendum before they can become law.  This process is an innovation that is not enjoyed by all parliamentary democracies, including some in the Caribbean.

It gives the Bahamian people direct control over the fundamental provisions of the Constitution, including provisions relating to citizenship, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the establishment of our national governmental institutions.

There are frameworks, templates and provisions utilized by most countries, including former British colonies, in the drafting of national constitutions.  Still, The Bahamas does not have a cookie cutter constitution.  Any suggestion to that effect is misleading and does not fully acknowledge or appreciate the role played by our constitutional fathers in the framing of the independence constitution.

Larger

A number of the customs and traditions used in the much larger British parliamentary system are not germane to and would be unworkable in our context.  With a 650-member House of Commons compared to our much smaller House of Assembly, our practice of parliamentary democracy is necessarily different.

The assertion that we have a colonial system of governance in itself is patently not true.  Furthermore, it contradicts the assertion, made in the same breath, that we have a Westminster model of governance.

Under the colonial system of governance the Colony of the Bahama Islands had a parliament that was, in the words of the late Bahamian constitutional expert the Hon. Eugene Dupuch, “representative but not responsible”.

There was no Cabinet, but there was an Executive Council, presided over by the British governor, who enjoyed enormous power.  There was also a system of boards, forerunners to government ministries, with the governor enjoying ultimate control over major decisions by the boards.

The dismantling of that colonial system began with the 1964 Constitution that was negotiated in London the previous year.  That Constitution ushered in a large measure of internal self-rule with the British governor still retaining some powers including defense, security and foreign affairs.  That process continued with the 1969 Constitution, when more power devolved to the Cabinet, and was completed with the Independence Constitution of 1973.

Thanks to the foresight of our Bahamian constitutional fathers who adeptly negotiated with the British, The Bahamas is now a modern, stable, successful parliamentary democracy.  While there were differences between the Bahamian political parties at the Independence Conference on a few matters relating to rights, there was general agreement on matters of governance.

We no more have a colonial system of governance than India, Australia, Jamaica, Barbados or Canada, fellow parliamentary democracies in the Commonwealth of Nations.  Anything but anachronistic, this system has proven to be durable, flexible and workable across cultures, countries and centuries.

Unfortunately, many who should know better believe that parliamentary democracy itself is antiquated, and that the United States has a better system of government, and one that is inherently more advisable or workable.  This is a fallacy to which we will have to return.

There are many non-Commonwealth nations which have opted for parliamentary democracy.  They have similarly discovered a certain genius within the system, the rudiments of which are hundreds of years old having evolved into one of the more effective systems of government in human history.

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

Jan 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

caribbean Blog International

In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning

Bahamian Agriculture, an overview. Agriculture series, part 1

By JOHN HEDDEN
jondgaul@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas


RECENTLY, much has appeared in the media about agriculture, with senior politicians, pundits, veterinary intellectuals and the regular armchair philosophers making their comments and putting forward opinions.

However, I have seen no comment from the actual farming community about the status and future of farming. This may shroud the real issues involved, and so confuse the general public with rhetoric and other fancy words.

Before the reality becomes smothered I feel that as a genuine 'paper farmer' I can probably help cloud the issue even further.

In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning.

This first part deals with historical anecdotes and notes which cover geographical, topographical and climate issues, and basic soils and water availability. I have not included dates because these instantly put off any student of history.

However a journey into the well documented archives of our country will verify many of my statements.

In the beginning was the Lucayan, the Arawak, the Taino, peoples who should go down in history as the true Bahamians, and the only people who have sustainably harvested their food from the environment throughout this archipelago.

Unfortunately these people did not survive to modern times.

Since the arrival of the Europeans, and to the present day, no people in the Bahamas have truly subsisted on the products of the native environment.

Subsistence production during the many very lean years after settlement, relied on non-native species for the major food sources.

These introduced species include cassava, sweet potato, yams, pigeon peas, red beans, sheep, goats, and all poultry. Even the wild hogs of many islands were introduced as domestic breeds before going feral.

The early settlers on several occasions had to appeal to their colleagues on the US mainland for help with staple supplies to prevent starvation on many of the inhabited islands.

The purchase of the Bahamas by the proprietors, and the establishment of plantations on many of the more southerly islands, became short lived, because the thin dry, arid soils were unable to supply sustainable commercial harvests.

In most cases these plantations were abandoned to the slaves and servants to eke out a kind of subsistence involving the sea, and slash and burn methods of coppice (black land) and sandy (white land) cultivation.

To many of the islanders, the Nassau capital may as well have been in Lima, Peru, because communications and transport were non-existent.

The northern pine islands were not exploited to any degree agriculturally, mainly because the pine land was inaccessible, and the 'cap rock' was unworkable with traditional hand tools and manual labour methods. The pine areas were thus appropriately named "The Barrens", even though fresh water was close at hand.

Even the arrival of the Loyalists with their plantation approach resulted in a common survival in which the whites were no better off than their black brothers. All struggled to survive.
The Bahamas went through many years of the most basic provision for sustenance in order to stave off debilitating hunger, and the early church missions often rescued locals from imminent starvation.

Up until the 19th century, church and religious annals take account of the destitution and malnourishment existing in much of the settled Out Islands.

Less than 100 years ago, arrangements were made by the Colonial Service to accommodate workers through contracts in North America. All types of Bahamians took advantage in order to survive the depression and the Second World War.

Many of these migrant workers earned the name "American Boy" after returning with adopted American mannerisms.

Even today there is no continuity of agricultural production over the traditional "lifetimes of farming" experienced in other parts of the world such as Africa and Europe.

There was however a brief spell in our history when agriculture seemed destined to become a major contributor to the economy.

During the early to late 1800s, pineapple and citrus production became a major source of foreign revenue for the islands.

Farming in Eleuthera, Cat island, and southern Abaco became very prominent; as it did in the eastern part of New Providence.

Produce exported to North America and England made significant contributions to the islands' welfare.

However, the rise of Hawaiian pineapple and Florida citrus plantings soon put paid to that flourishing industry. A one cent tax was levied on each imported fruit, thus protecting the US producers.

After the end of the Second World War, the English government introduced the Colonial Development Corporation to various islands in order to foster growth through agricultural entrepreneurship.

The pineapple project on the best land in south Eleuthera failed because mechanisation removed the red soils and introduced raw limestone.

This area would later claim fame as the 'Charolais Ranch' that provided the US with it's prized French cattle breeding stock.

The Andros project failed because the fruit and vegetable land selected behind fresh Creek was a summer swamp when the rains came, and no number of pumps could keep the growing area dry.

It is ironical that here the water was pumped away from the crops, and not to them. Rice would not even grow in the perimeter canals and drainage ditches.

In addition, produce shipped out from Andros by barge did not even survive the journey to Nassau.

Over the years, attempts have been made to introduce sugar cane, large citrus groves, dairy, egg and poultry production to a non-existent agricultural sector.

Some survived for a number of years but mainly because protection against competition was the rule of the day.

In the modern era with the advent of Bahamian accession to the WTO and the apparent barring of protectionism in any form, bleak prospects for agricultural enterprise are looming on the Bahamian horizon.

Many feel disillusioned and upset over the lack of governmental input in order to save the tradition of farming in the country.

The reality is that apart from subsistence production purely for survival, the Bahamian agricultural sector is a myth and a non-contributor to any recognisable part of the economy.

In fact, since majority rule Bahamians have been actively encouraged to move away from agricultural and menial work into tourism and financial services. Today the perception is that agriculture is demeaning and subservient work, close to being on welfare.

The introduction of more modern technology has recently accounted for some apparently successful start ups, and renovated enterprises in Andros.

The use of more modern techniques, even basic ones like efficient irrigation, can dramatically improve yields.

Management of soil fertility and pest control are equally important. These issues will be dealt with in the following article.

September 17, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International