Bahamas: ...The old Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) lost its way long ago ...and the so-called ‘new PLP’ has failed to find it

Sir Lynden’s and the PLP’s entitled imperial court

By frontporchguardian@gmail.com

During the 2012 general election, Sir Lynden Pindling’s widow took to the political stage as a part of the PLP’s strategy to use the late prime minister’s legacy to help the party secure victory.  It is debatable how successful was the strategy.

In her appearances, Dame Marguerite sought not only to burnish Sir Lynden’s legacy, which is considerable, and much of which is admirable and contributed extraordinarily to national development.

But many in the country at large, including many PLPs, were dismayed by her tone and remarks which harkened to a darker period in the nation’s history.

Once again on vivid display was that entrenched entitlement and imperious mentality of the Pindling Court: Don’t forget what we did for you and never forget that you owe us.

Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham was chastised as a mere recipient of the favors and consideration of the court, who had supposedly turned on his political masters and benefactors.

It was a not-so-subtle reminder to party Leader Perry Christie and all other supplicants expected to offer life-long obeisance to the court.

Seemingly, the PLP is a Pindling-owned and branded enterprise merely on loan to various caretakers who are to be held accountable to the dynasty.  All of which arises from an extraordinary combination of historical revisionism, mythology and hagiography.

Berated

At one of the rallies Dame Marguerite berated Ingraham for the way in which she felt he treated her husband after the latter left office.  Missing was any reference to the effusive thanks extended to Ingraham by Sir Lynden’s oldest son Obafemi Pindling at the funeral of his father, and which Ingraham graciously declined to use in response.

What has stunned, grated on, and even enraged so many of this lament is Lady Pindling’s seemingly absolute dismissal of the degrading and vicious treatment of many Bahamians by Sir Lynden and his court during his 25-year reign.

It was a ruthless and vindictive era.  Dissidents and opponents were to be destroyed.  And, quite a number were destroyed.

Lukewarm supporters and half-steppers were reminded of the price of disfavor: a quick call to a bank to stop a loan, blocked access to a job or to a scholarship for a child seeking to go to college, denial of a work permit for a spouse, and a catalogue of indignities and injustices.

There was gross and constant intimidation and victimization including the callous deportation of foreign spouses resulting in exile or the ruin of Bahamian families.

Those who opposed certain policies or wrong-doings or the court’s greed and corruption were set for abuse and ridicule, including veterans of the movement like the champion of Bahamian culture Edmund Moxey and the brilliant Carlton Francis.

Francis was cruelly ridiculed by Sir Lynden from a public platform.  He said of Francis who had participated in a public demonstration, “ ... And all I could see was suit!”, mocking a dying man thinned by the cancer ravaging his body.

Outstanding Bahamian educator and civil servant Leonard Archer fared even worse.  After he participated in a demonstration by teachers, Lady Pindling publicly asked: “What are we going to do about Leonard Archer?”  The next day he was fired by her husband “in the public interest”!

Tellingly, and of tremendous historical significance, more than half of those who formed the first majority rule government eventually left the PLP.  Yet there is the laughable conceit within the PLP of its superior nationalism.  It is a chauvinistic boast in a party given to all manner of chauvinism.

Even at the time when the Dissident Eight were leaving the party that they helped to build and contributed mightily to majority rule, Paul Adderley, then leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP), commented on their departure noting that the PLP was losing much of the soul of the party.

Decades later, following the death of Charles Maynard, a former PLP grandee remarked that the FNM is now the more progressive of the two major parties.  Maynard’s father, Andrew ‘Dud’ Maynard, an undoubted nationalist who toiled long and hard for the PLP, recently noted that the party he once knew and supported had lost its way.

Corrupted

Parties of liberation and majority rule cum independence often lose their way, corrupted by temptations of extraordinary political and economic power.  Examples abound across the globe.  The PLP is but one example of the chauvinism and sense of entitlement that sometimes develops in such parties.

The boundaries between party and state are blurred.  By example, what should be afforded an individual or a business as an opportunity arising from one’s rights as a citizen is twisted instead into a grant of favor by the party.

During the reign of Sir Lynden’s imperial court, many business people had to beg or bribe party officials for the grant of all manner of business licences and permits.

Independence leaders often become unaccountable and untouchable with their excesses dismissed.  Further, the assets of the state are spoils to be divided with plundering zeal by select interests.

Soon after coming to office Sir Lynden effectively destroyed Bahamas Airways – after his own government had negotiated with a consortium including the hugely successful Cathay Pacific to make the local airline truly international.  He summarily broke a prior agreement with Cathay Pacific by awarding certain routes to Bahamas World Airways, an airline conceived by his friend Everette Bannister and scoffingly referred to by many Bahamians as “the paper airline”.

In so doing he destroyed a golden opportunity for the country, resulting in the loss of an expanded local airline and causing a drain of approximately half a billion dollars from the treasury to keep Bahamasair operational.

Imagine what could have been done in terms of national development with half a billion dollars, not to mention a well-managed airline serving cities throughout the Americas.  So much for being the party of superior nationalism.

The PLP did considerable work in advancing the national good.  But many of the promises of majority rule were stillborn as the party abandoned a genuine nationalism for a pseudo nationalism that routinely touted and celebrated its liberation credentials even as it plunged the country into some of our darkest days.

That national nightmare involved a ‘nation for sale’ or lease to drug barons resulting in mass corruption, the destruction of scores of Bahamians who became addicted to crack cocaine or the easy money associated with the demon drug, and a ripping apart of our social fabric, from which we are still suffering up to this day.

Despite all of this, Sir Lynden and his court showed scant remorse.  It is chilling and deeply disturbing still to read the Commission of Inquiry Report into this nightmarish period and to peruse some of the evidence given.

Oligarchy

The PLP, the supposed party of superior nationalism, is today an oligarchy of special interests which uses the rhetoric and politics of nationalism to win elections with sloganeering such as “Bahamians First”, then governs mostly in its own interest.

This is the party in which one senior PLP bragged of selling off more land than the FNM, the party of the Great Mayaguana Land Giveaway, the party in which the two top senior leaders have a clear conflict of interest with an oil exploration company.

Having militantly opposed advancing the rights of women in terms of passing on certain rights of citizenship, the party holds a special session of parliament to brag about its commitment to women and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of women attaining the right to vote.

There is a pattern here.  The PLP, often quite effectively, employs the symbols and the narratives of nationalism to reinforce its credentials as the nationalist party.  The FNM has often played into its hands.

Given repeated opportunities to make January 10 a national holiday, the FNM was often on the defensive, unsure of how to embrace and burnish its own commitment to a more expansive vision of the national good.

Sir Lynden and his court did not try to destroy the Dissident Eight and others in spite of who they were.  The PLP tried to destroy them and to deny their nationalist credentials precisely because of who they were and what they represented.

It is a feature of the sociology of organizations, from churches to political parties, that dissidents have to be destroyed and branded as heretics and traitors when they call into question how the organization to which they were dedicated may have betrayed its ideals and the people they were committed to serving.

The old PLP lost its way long ago and the so-called ‘new PLP’ has failed to find it.  The party remains dedicated to a certain chauvinism, on stark display at the recent election as the widow of the party’s longest serving leader reminded Bahamians of what it feels that the country still owes the PLP’s entitled imperial court.

September 19, 2013

thenassauguardian

The political parties seeking employment as the next government of The Bahamas should note that the increasingly informed Bahamian electorate demands details of their proposed monetary, fiscal and macroeconomic policies ...before they cast their votes for them... The stakes are too high to entertain politics as usual in The Bahamas

Another general election without substance?

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

thenassauguardian

Nassau, The Bahamas

Now that the election bell has been rung and the anticipated date for the election is scheduled for May 7, 2012, one can’t help but wonder what lies ahead for the Bahamian people during the next government’s term of office from 2012 to 2017.

It is now officially four weeks prior to the election date and we have yet to receive a single manifesto from any of the political parties vying for the top spot in governance.  The opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is running a campaign primarily based upon improving the economy, job creation and crime reduction and has released literature to that effect.  The newly formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has based its campaign on “real change” and being a viable alternative to the established parties outlining its proposals on certain issues such as the economy, crime and illegal immigration.  As anticipated, the governing Free National Movement (FNM) is running a campaign based upon leadership, delivery on its promises and its ability to manage the economy in the midst of the global economic crisis.

 

The economic situation

Nationwide commentary suggests that Bahamians are concerned about both microeconomic and macroeconomic issues affecting their lives.  From a microeconomic standpoint, they are concerned about the government’s inability to create permanent jobs, improve education and ensure that they are able to maintain a decent standard of living.  The issue of home ownership and the deepening mortgage crisis remains of utmost concern to the middle and working classes of the electorate.  It is also an understatement to emphasize that the electorate abhors the reality that in 21st century Bahamas.  Widespread job opportunities are still restricted to the tourism and financial services sectors or the civil service.

On the macro-economic front, there is widespread uneasiness about the rising government debt level in the face of reduced government revenue; a U.S. economy that is slowly recovering; high food and fuel prices; and corresponding increases in the inflation and unemployment rates that are believed to have a high correlation to the high crime rate.  In the past five years, unemployment has doubled to more than 15 percent; the national debt has doubled to more than $4 billion; and crime, including the heinous crime of murder, evidence a fast-paced upward trend with approximately 500 murder victims to date.

While it is true that governments across the world, including developed nations, were faced with some of the challenges outlined above, it has been reported that the Bahamian government had at its advantage several investment projects left on the table by the former Christie administration that had the potential to create additional jobs.  The PLP opposition has reiterated this point and accused the government of what it termed as the “stop, review and cancel” policy which it argues expedited the recession in The Bahamas.

We will never know the true impact that these projects would have had if they had come to fruition.  What is clear is that the government lacked a clear and prudent fiscal, monetary or economic policy that would have guided us through this recession with minimal casualties of unemployment, crime and home foreclosures.

The FNM, which is traditionally considered to be both politically and fiscally conservative in contrast to the PLP’s social and liberal approach to politics and fiscal management, has done very little to distinguish itself in this current term of office from the manner in which it is perceived a PLP government would govern.

The introduction of the prescription drug program and unemployment benefits, which would traditionally be seen as PLP policies, are necessary safety nets that all progressive governments should implement.  However, due to the regressive tax structure in The Bahamas, low to middle income earners bore the brunt of the implementation of these initiatives through increased taxes in the midst of an already challenging economic climate.

 

Where are the ideas?

It is rather unfortunate that in spite of the lessons supposedly learned during the financial crisis and with the election date fast approaching, all the political parties have not provided to the Bahamian people a comprehensive action plan to address the pressing issues facing our dear nation.  Rather, we seem to be headed to another election season in which silliness and petty issues are magnified.  I submit that what is lacking in The Bahamas today is not intellectual capacity or a shortage of innovative ideas, but rather our leaders do not have the political will to implement policies that will move the country forward.

The Bahamian electorate has become weary of campaigns without substance which fail to expressly articulate in clear terms how the country will be put back on the right track.  Political parties will do well in unequivocally committing to tax reform, economic diversification, reducing the budget deficit and national debt in the interest of future generations by producing a viable plan as documented in their respective manifestos.  A commitment in this regard will ensure in the long run economic stability, growth and development.

In the absence of manifestos to date, it is without a doubt that the build-up to this year’s general election will lack the necessary substance to foster sensible debates on pertinent issues and ensure effective scrutiny of the next government.  Politicians should be advised that the old tricks of sheer rhetoric and glorified baloney will no longer satisfy a people that desire more for our Bahamaland. The political parties seeking employment as the next government of The Bahamas should note that the increasingly informed electorate demand details of their proposed monetary, fiscal and macroeconomic policies before they cast their votes for them.  The stakes are too high to entertain politics as usual.

 

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law. Comments can be directed to:arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

Apr 12, 2012

thenassauguardian

Bahamas: ...the Bahamian democratic experience and the rationale underpinning parliamentary democracy in The Islands

Celebrating the Bahamian democratic experience

Front Porch

By Simon

Nassau, The Bahamas

Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas - Some of the frustrations with our political life are understandable, many of which are shared by those in frontline politics who daily manage the complex matters of state with which most of us would prefer not to contend.

Parliamentary debates are sometimes sterile and unimaginative.  The lack of preparation by some parliamentarians is an embarrassment for themselves and those they represent.

Yet, we need to place our frustrations within context, historically and geographically.   Familiarity often breeds contempt.  Yet, it is unfamiliarity with our parliamentary system that has bred contempt for the institutions and practices that provide for democratic stability.

Many in academia and journalism, and even in Parliament, are woefully ill-informed about the fundamentals of our parliamentary system.   There is a great deal of erroneous information transmitted by these opinion leaders.

The lack of knowledge by those who should know better by virtue of their profession helps to fuel the pining for certain elements of the American system of government despite the lack of in-depth familiarity with why that system was developed and how it functions.

This unfamiliarity has spawned wistfulness for a system that even some of its founders may have come to believe is in need of significant reform in light of a different America today than at its founding.

Filibuster

The accretion of powers within the United States Senate which allows a single senator to place lengthy holds on or filibuster certain legislation are profoundly undemocratic practices in what is often self-servingly called the world’s greatest deliberative body.

The American founders might also be horrified by the army of corporate lobbyists who have been adept at finagling gigantic tax loopholes, outsized subsidies, lax regulation and wink and nod legislation.  This system has cost America trillions at the expense of social protections such as an infant mortality rate of which the world’s greatest power should be embarrassed.

Both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government refused despite warnings to provide oversight – including legislation – that would have regulated OTC derivatives and other fanciful financial instruments.   This historic failure helped to ignite a global economic meltdown, crippling the housing market, life savings and prospects for millions in the middle class in the U.S. alone.

Most of those who helped create this disaster escaped responsibility.   It is baffling when so-called progressives at home call for the adoption of a more America-styled system supposedly to check the abuses of power.  Politicians do not have a monopoly on such abuse.   Unchecked financial interests are also toxic to the political system.

If America is the prime model for those Bahamians who want a reformed political system based on that model, they have some explaining to do in light of the failures of that country’s political system.

Despite the common misperception, ours is really not a Westminster system of government.   We have a written constitution which Britain does not, and a number of the customs and traditions used in the much larger British parliamentary system are not germane to and are unworkable in our context.   With a 650-member House of Commons compared to our 41-member House of Assembly, our practice of parliamentary democracy is necessarily different.

However, our system is derived from the British parliamentary tradition which has enjoyed significant success including stability and resourcefulness over many centuries.   With not even a half a century of majority rule we are still familiarizing ourselves with our parliamentary system and democratic politics.

The Bahamian system

Still, we have done quite well as a democracy since 1967.   In rapid succession we produced a number of firsts having thrown the major parties out of office after 25 then 10 then five years.   We have done so including surviving two elections with questionable results – 1962 and 1987 – with little to no violence.

Our system is resilient, anchored in a constitutional framework and a rule of law stronger than the personalities and parties who may hold legislative and executive power for a period.   We often confuse the current occupants of high office with the actual nature and powers inherent in those offices.

Some of this confusion takes the form of asking whether the prime minister has too much power as granted by the constitution.   Interestingly, this school of thought gains currency when more powerful leaders are in office such as Sir Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham.  This was much less a concern during the weaker prime ministership of Perry Christie.

Curiously, many of those who have advanced this line of thinking while in opposition did not act on their convictions during their time in government.

The question about the prime minister’s power is a part of a larger question about the scope and nature of the powers granted to officeholders, particularly in the executive and legislative spheres.   It is often discussed in the language of the balance of power and checks and balances.

Our constitution provides numerous checks such as the provision that executive authority is held by the cabinet of The Bahamas, not singularly by the prime minister, a fact that seems to escape many commentators.   It also provides for the removal of a prime minister by his parliamentary colleagues.

All democratic systems wrestle with how much power to afford elected leaders, balancing sufficient power to get things done with checks on those powers to limit potential abuse.  That singular democratic impulse borne from the experience of time and various places has given rise to varying systems such as those of Britain and the U.S.

Before being mesmerized by the supposed greater genius of the American political enterprise, more of us may well examine the Bahamian democratic experience and the rationale underpinning parliamentary democracy.   Then we may more fully appreciate the genius of our system, which, while always in need of reform, has gotten the essentials right and offers more flexibility and built-in resources of which many remain blissfully ignorant and blithely uninformed.

Nov 08, 2011

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

thenassauguardian

The "Lotioner" in Bahamian politics and other kinds of Bahamian politicians

Portrait of the ‘Lotioner’
East Street Blues


BY IAN STRACHAN

Nassau, Bahamas


There are three kinds of Bahamian politicians. The question for the Bahamian electorate is, which kind is the best kind for these times and which should they give the powers of the Prime Minister to?

The first kind I’d call “The Lotioner.” Our people seem to like this kind a lot. They smile a lot. Love to shake hands and hug people. They make sure the black dye in their hair is always done perfectly. They seem to genuinely enjoy high office. I’m not sure they enjoy hard work and making unpopular decisions but they do enjoy attention.

This type of man is popular and has been his whole life. More than anything, he wants to be liked, likes to be liked, and usually that’s not very hard for him because he’s a natural charmer. He never wants to get on the people’s bad side. In fact, he tends to choose his sides depending on where the people stand. As soon as he’s pretty sure where most people stand, he’ll get up and say “You don’t have to vote for me if you want, but such and such is my position!”

Now, as a politician this makes very good sense, since the people elected you and can easily remove you. Popular opinion and popularity are the oxygen and bread the politician needs to survive. But there’s a flip side. The flip side is that the majority are often wrong, often misinformed, often emotional, often short sighted, often bigoted, so the politician who focuses on what the people want to the neglect of all else can turn out to be a leader history has little good to say about.

Pandering to the people at all times is no way to lead. In fact, it makes you a fraud. There are times when the people must be made to do what they would rather not do; there are times when for their own sakes, their appetites must be curbed, their habits altered, their convenience sacrificed.

When power for its own sake is the only goal, not actual progress, the Lotioner becomes a liability. But there he is, constantly flattering us, telling us how great we are, how great our nation is, how blessed he is to have this opportunity, how humbled he is by the power we have bestowed upon him.

Oh, and let us not forget one other very important thing about the Lotioner: he prefers form over substance. Nuts and bolts are anathema to him. He doesn’t have the appetite for it. Or he just doesn’t care about it. He lives for the grand speech, not the backdoor planning meeting. He goes in for grand gestures, for emoting, his goal is to be the One. He rarely ever really has anything he really wants to accomplish once he is the One, so long as he remains the One. The Lotioner strikes as someone who should have been a Hollywood actor but found that the crowds enjoyed political rallies and therefore gave up on the Hollywood dream and pursued Parliament instead. It’s easier.

Lotioners are very astute politicians when it comes to reading the current of popular opinion; they are very adept at expressing things with certitude and conviction even if their actual commitment to what they are saying is paper thin. They love the performance of politics but produce little change. The Lotioner is far better at keeping this going the way they are than he is at making dramatic changes or reform that could get people worked up and angry at him. This leader works better in government than in opposition and works better when times are good than when times are hard. He needs a well oiled machine to sit on top of. Don’t ask him to build the machine.

Now, I must give credit where credit is due. The Lotioner, in his eloquence and shininess is able to bring the masses to a level of euphoria, hopefulness and optimism that the other two kinds of politicians can rarely match. To put it plainly, the man can make you feel good about your life and your world. They can make you believe the world can be a better place. They can make you believe they will deliver that world to you. When they are their best, the Lotioners can make the masses stronger and more united than anyone thought possible.

It helps is the Lotioner is a man of high intelligence. His intelligence doesn’t make him less of a B.S.-er, it makes him more likely to surround himself with people who actually know what they’re doing. A super smart Lotioner, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, has good judgement and knows to listen to the experts. Lotioners almost always marry wives that are smarter and more competent than they are. That’s no mistake. You will find that such men lean on their wives heavily for their actual career success.



IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor of English at The College of The Bahamas. You can write him at strachantalk@gmail or visit www.ianstrachan.wordpress.com.

Jun 30, 2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamian Politics Blog

Big Money and Politics in The Bahamas

Big Money and Politics

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Nassau, The Bahamas



While practically everyone talks a good talk concerning the need for campaign finance reform in the Bahamas; practically no one wants to do anything real about the matter.

This is most unfortunate.

With but months to go before general elections must be called, there are some Bahamians who loath the extent to which politics in this country seems to be driven by money; and therefore by the men and women who are rich enough to buy practically everything their little hearts desire.

Today’s word on the street is to the effect that, some of these men and women of the deep pockets are sometimes minded to fund this or that party – evidently expecting some return on their ‘investments’.

Evidently, practically no one would ever step into the light and confess that, this is why they give; or for that matter, ever say that, when they give, they expect some return for the funds they dole out.

We could quite frankly speaking care less about what people say about the purpose to which their money might or might not be put; but for sure, we are fully cognizant of the fact that, we live in a very real world where talk is cheap and where [by the same token] money buys land.

And that there is an intimate relationship between money and power is – as they say a no-brainer; since this is just the way things are in a place where money always means so very much.

The problem that arises – as far as we can surmise – rests with the extent to which money [and especially Big Money] can and does on occasion go to great lengths to conceal itself and its ownership of this or that political party, individual or entity.

This leads [as day follows night] to a perception that, in such circumstances talk about free and fair elections is just so much high sounding hot air.

Nowhere is this truth as telling as it is in the realm of Bahamian politics where any numbers of political aspirants routinely tell themselves and their publics that, they are solely motivated by their desire for public service.

No one with an iota of common sense is ever fooled by these protestations.

We recount these facts as prelude to our contention that big money has played on extraordinarily large role in funding this nation's best organized political entities.

The truth of the matter is that money does talk.

It is true too that big money can be expected to 'talk big'. And so, no one should be surprised when large donors to political parties expect dividends on their investments.

What compounds this matter of the often illicit relationship between money and power is the nagging suspicion that deals are struck by politicians on the make.

When the day for payback comes, the public interest is itself vitiated and undermined. Again, what makes this matter of money even more troubling is that it is often used to create and embellish a notion that the electorate is in charge.

The picture is obviously more complex.

When millions of dollars can be secretly pumped into electoral contests, extreme questions arise concerning the integrity of the entire democratic project.

We note, too, that this problem is one which pervades politics worldwide. In the United States, for example, campaign finance reform is one of that nation's perennial problems. To their credit they have done something about it.

In The Bahamas, on the other hand, little has been done about the matter. Indeed, the record shows that the problem has gone from bad to worse, with the Progressive Liberal Party and its Free National Movement counterpart apparently getting set for an orgy of money-spending.

Big Money might yet prove pivotal in determining the outcome of general elections whenever the date arrives for Bahamians to do their thing in an environment where that thing is preceded by Big Money and its myriad of oily maneuvers.

Simply put, the elementary and undeniable fact of the matter is that the public interest cannot and will not ever be best served if money moguls can between them curry favor with political aspirants and political parties.

The public should be able to know who has paid what to whom.

The way ahead for this country is for its political leaders to so conduct themselves that no one could expect favors in return for money contributions or any other consideration.

If such were to become principled policy in The Bahamas, there would be an ensuing liberating effect on the entire political process.

Debate would be more honest and genuine leadership would be given an opportunity to have its voice heard.

For the moment, the voice of Big Money continues to drown out others, including some which have a genuine contribution to make to this nation's economic, social and political growth and development.

April 28th, 2011

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Bahamas Blog International

The Nature of Politics, Politicks and Democracy in The Bahamas

Politicking and Democracy. What’s the difference?

Edward Hutcheson


I have spent the last two weeks looking at the nation and people of the Bahamas, attempted to write letters and found myself reaching some rebellious conclusions about what answers and remedies should be about. Speaking to an older friend reminded me that life is not about answers, there are answers for more things than there are questions. His sage response to “What is democracy?” was, “Have you answered the question in your own country?” He was referring to the fact that we in the Bahamas take our cues from how people are doing things everywhere else in the world, it is not too original, but it takes away the responsibility of being responsible, since the idea came from somewhere else. And when you think of it, that is how the country has progressed – a lot of outside help and money, with Bahamians acting like tourists most of the time.

At the end of my looking, I had the opportunity to view, on one of the local television stations a discussion on the privatization of BTC, the talk show host had some members of a political party giving their view on the process. It was amazing, the amount of information that came out of it, there were answers for everything, until the moderator asked a question that was not anticipated. He wanted to know what was that particular party’s policy on the privatization, seeing that they had attempted the same process, some time ago. They were not able to give an answer, and then the host reminded them that their position had changed from what it previously was, and the reply was that that was the nature of politics. The host was able to pin down one of the rising stars in the party and his reply was that they did not have a policy on BTC, but they had a model that they were following. I wanted the host to push for a further explanation of that model, but they ran out of time.

Lately, it seems like most of the answers the public is getting are more like opinions; everybody has one. We must come to the place where we are able to ask the questions to whoever is leading out nation or who would like to lead and not get out of their face until the answers are forthcoming. I am getting ticked about the BTC issue, primarily because the public is not being told what is happening and/or the bodies involved in the process are not informed on the issues that they are addressing and this exercise up to now is more about persons maintaining their lifestyles or various groups of persons promoting social unrest.

The historic reality is that technology renders a judgment that government legislation cannot protect anybody from, except you are living in a dictatorship, and those of us who think we are gaining something by promoting battles are wasting time and money. We became a democracy in 1967, but it took us 25years to get our voices, and even within that time frame persons who should have known better made an attempt to ban dialect from the airwaves.

So what is a Democracy? It is when persons who were democratically elected exercise transparency in their dealings with the persons who elected them, and those who would like to be elected give a fair and impartial presentation of what they do know and would like to see, leaving nothing out. Anything else is politicking.

March 22, 2011

weblogbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: Politicians 'highjacked' community policing

WE TALKED with several Bahamians this weekend about Urban Renewal and its effectiveness.  There were many opinions, but all agreed that the programme was doomed from the beginning because it was bogged down in politics.

"You must remember," said one sarcastically, "what is now Urban Renewal started as the Farm Road project when a few policemen were strategically placed to impress the people.  No Urban Renewal was on anyone's mind when that happened.  The Farm Road project was solely to secure a seat for a politician."

In fact, said another Bahamian, community policing was "highjacked" by the politicians.

It was only when the police went into Farm Road and discovered such squalor in some of the homes that urban renewal was born and eventually the programme spread to other inner cities.

Instead of the police going into communities and discovering what was wrong and instructing the responsible government department to correct it, police found themselves directing home repairs, cleaning up garbage, and generally being involved in non-police work.

Another person did not see much change in the Urban Renewal programme when it came under the FNM-- other than the police being removed from school campuses.

The person felt that it was the parents' responsibility --not that of the police -- to make certain that their child did not go to school with a weapon.

"A lie is being foisted on the Bahamian people that Urban Renewal is dead.  This is simply not true," said one police officer.  "The programme has not been stopped, however, it has been changed."

He said the police had been providing the leadership.

However, when other organisations took their rightful place in the programme, the police stepped back and returned to their policing duties.

However, they continued to support the programme wherever their assistance was required.

The officer did not agree that the police should have ever been on the school campus. "It undermines the authority of the school principal and the school's staff," he said.  However, although no police officer is stationed on the campus, an effective school programme with the police involved is still in place.

Each school has direct contact with the nearest police station and the police are on call whenever needed.

There are also programmes in place to give children police protection early in the morning when they arrive at school and in the afternoon when they are leaving.  Police also supervise children who have been suspended from class.  The police contact the parents, and have a programme to which the parents take their child for police supervision for as long as they have been banned from the classroom.  These children are not wandering the streets. They are very much under police control.

But for politicians to say that Urban Renewal is dead or that protection is not being given to the schools, "is just intellectual dishonesty," was this officer's opinion.

However, another Bahamian saw what should have been a 24-hour community service being turned into a 9am to 5pm job for a civil servant.  "They took the police out and flooded us with all these experts," he said.  "In the social services you'd be surprised how many hands a request has to go through just to get one thing approved.  In every department the public service is very weak."

What this country needs is dedicated community policing where police and people come together, united by a common goal.

Community policing was started long before politicians conjured up the controversial urban renewal programme.  It was launched and managed by the police and in the areas where it was being developed, it was very successful.

We were intimately involved with the Nassau programme and gave considerable news space to a similar programme organised in Cat Island.

There was ASP Shannondor Evans, spearheading a programme from the police station in Elizabeth Estates, and Supt. Stephen Dean organising a student band and youth clubs in Cat Island.  Both programmes were successful -- regardless of political affiliation residents were working with the police towards a common goal.

Cat Island, we were told, was a good example of how community programmes could make a difference.  Faculty and staff at the Cat Island school commented on how the music programmes in particular had helped improve students' grades.  It was thought that because of these programmes, students had become more focused.

Tomorrow we shall describe in more detail Mr Evans' successful programme in the Eastern division. This area included Prince Charles, Sea Breeze, Fox Hill Road and the Eastern Road.

There are probably many police men and women who are well versed in community policing.  We know of two -- ASP Evans, and Superintendent Dean, who represents the Bahamas on the community policing committee of the International Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police.  And we have heard of a third -- Supt. Carolyn Bowe.

These are the people whose skills and enthusiasm should be utilised in helping to coordinate and spread such programmes.

November 23, 2009

tribune242