The Bahamas General Election 2012: ...Reversal of Fortune

Election 2012: Reversal of fortune

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

The results of the recent general election prove that democracy is still alive and well in our nation.  In the words of the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling after having conceded defeat to Hubert Ingraham in the 1992 general election, “The people of this great little democracy have spoken in a most dignified and elegant manner.   And the voice of the people is the voice of God”.

In an earlier piece, we had referenced the Jamaican elections of December 2011 in which the ruling Jamaican Labour Party (JLP) was defeated by the People’s National Party (PNP).  In the run-up to that election just like The Bahamas elections, polls had indicated that the race was close and in a dead heat.   However, the reverse would occur as the PNP would command 49 of the 63 available seats with no seats going to independents or third parties.  The challenges faced by the JLP were similar to those faced by the Free National Movement (FNM) government and not surprisingly, the outcomes have proved to be identical.

A reflection on election 2012

At this point, it is too early to state with great certainty the cause of the FNM’s defeat in the 2012 general election.  There is no doubt that the general election was hotly contested even though the number of constituencies won by the parties may not show this fact.  Apart from the long established parties of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the FNM, we saw the entrance of the newly formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA).

The DNA under the leadership of Branville McCartney capitalized on the obvious political divide of and the clamor for change by the Bahamian electorate.  However, as anticipated, votes for the DNA did not help the party win the government but rather served as spoiler of votes for the FNM and the PLP.  In the aftermath of the elections, certain political analysts have concluded that the presence of the DNA hurt the FNM more than it did the PLP based on the assumption that votes that were cast in favor of the DNA would have gone to the FNM.  This conclusion fails to explore the possibility that the DNA votes could have increased the number of PLP votes (and ultimately the number of PLP seats won) if in fact individuals voted against the FNM government and/or leadership.  However, in the absence of any scientific data to support these analyses, any subsequent conclusions are flawed.

In a public poll spearheaded by Public Domain, the results of the poll evidenced that there was an anti-government support with the FNM receiving 30.5 percent, the PLP 20.3 percent and DNA 16.5 percent.  Further, the exit polls conducted by The Tribune after the advanced polls showed the PLP ahead of the FNM significantly.  Preliminary data suggest that both the PLP and the FNM maintained their base while the DNA attained a portion of the independent and undecided votes.  It can also be argued that what separated the PLP from the FNM was that the PLP gained independent and undecided voters as well as disgruntled FNMs.

Same script, different cast

In 1992, Ingraham was successful in dethroning the most dominant political figure in Bahamian politics, the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling.  The administration had been plagued with socio-economic challenges due to effects of the drug era of the late 1970s through to the 1980s, a global recession, which at the time was termed the greatest since the Great Depression of the 1920s, and the rising cost of gas and food items.

Against this backdrop, Ingraham and the FNM campaigned against the PLP on the rising crime rate, an increasing national debt, illegal immigration and allegations of corruption and scandals.  Ingraham and the FNM promised a “government in the sunshine” that will usher in increased accountability and transparency in governance, better economic times and increased jobs, free enterprise and privatization of public entities and most notably the liberalization of the airwaves.

The Bahamian electorate, who at the time was suffering from high unemployment or underemployment and the rising cost of living, elected Ingraham and the FNM to office with the FNM defeating the PLP and claiming 32 of the 49 seats.  The FNM was subsequently granted a second mandate to govern during the general election of 1997 in a landslide victory in which the party won 34 of the 40 parliamentary seats.  Many remain of the view that Pindling’s failure to depart frontline politics and step down as leader of the opposition PLP also contributed to the resounding victory.

Two decades later, history has repeated itself.  Ingraham, faced with similar challenges that his mentor had back in 1992, was defeated resoundingly in a landslide victory by Christie in the 2012 general election.  The 2012 victory would also put to rest all questions as to whether Christie had what it took to defeat his most formidable political leader.  Just like his mentor, a decade and a half earlier, Ingraham would concede defeat in a gracious manner and would go further by announcing his immediate resignation as a member of Parliament and leader of the FNM.

Christie’s legacy term

The following words of Pindling after the PLP’s defeat in 1997 echo through time, “Today’s generation may not be so kind, but we chose to build on the past rather than destroy it.  We chose consensus and compromise over confrontation and conflict.”  The Christie administration should be guided by these words.  Christie, who has been favored to lead the final leg of the three-man political era of Pindling, Ingraham and Christie, must build upon his accomplishments and the success of his predecessors.  He must chart the course this term to build upon the legacy he started during his first term in office.  Christie is presented with an opportunity to not only cement the legacy of his predecessors but also to solidify his own lasting legacy for successive generations of Bahamians.   A definitive decision on gambling, an effective immigration policy, the expansion of access to quality education, true urban development and expansion and diversification of our economy are realistic feats that can be achieved in one term of office.

George Mackey in one of his pieces stated the following: “By the time the PLP was voted out of office on August 19, 1992, most of the planks of its initial platform, designed to address the many social and political ills that had led to its formation, had already been virtually completed.  In essence, the platform of the Quiet Revolution had run its course.  What the enlightened masses required was another vision, one that had as its primary objective their economic empowerment”.

This objective remains the same four and a half decades after the PLP started its journey in 1967.  Christie must create the environment for economic empowerment of our people.

We the Bahamian people on our part must give credit where credit is due to leaders who have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve our nation.  Our politics has divided us so much that we choose to focus on the failures of our leaders rather than their successes.  Now more than ever, we must be united and committed to building a stronger and better Bahamas that will once again make its mark on the world stage.  We must put our colors aside in the interest of current and future generations of Bahamians.

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

May 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

7 Years on from the Creation of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America’s Trade Agreement for the People (ALBA-TCP)

7 Years on from the Creation of the ALBA -TCP



By Tahina Ojeda Medina - Ciudad CSS

What initially started as an alternative aimed at stopping the advance of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) has been transformed into an alliance in favour of Latin American and Caribbean integration.  I am referring to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America’s Trade Agreement for the People (ALBA-TCP).

It is important to remember the solitary beginnings of ALBA-TCP.  The main goal of the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec was to create the FTAA, and like the majority of hemispheric meetings, the decision to implement a free trade area had already been taken prior to it being “democratically approved”.

The FTAA claimed to create a structure for free trade relations within the framework of the free market, without taking into account economic asymmetries, much less social ones.  This aforementioned structure is evident in the 6th point of discussion for business and investment in the summit’s “plan of action”: countries will “ensure that the negotiations for the FTAA conclude before January 2005 at the latest, so that the agreement might be put into effect as soon as possible, no later than December 2005...”

The only vote against the plan came from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; although the plan was published as having been approved unanimously.

Once they had analysed the kind of injustices that the application of the FTAA would bring to Latin America and the Caribbean, Cuba and Venezuela stepped forward and agreed on a plan to put the brakes on this situation.  This is where the idea of the ALBA emerged, against the 2001 FTAA, before it was formally established in 2004 in Havana, Cuba.

The next step to stop the advance of the FTAA was taken at the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in 2005.  The final declaration of this summit read “the necessary conditions to implement a balanced and equal free trade agreement still do not exist, (conditions which ensure) the effective access to markets free of subsidies and distortive business practices, which take into account the needs and sensitivities of all business partners, including in their levels of development and the size of their economies”.  This summit represented a definitive break with the FTAA.

Furthermore, Latin America and the Caribbean’s political map had changed since the FTAA was proposed.  Cuba and Venezuela were no longer alone.  From 2004, the following countries joined the ALBA: Bolivia (2006), Nicaragua (2008), Dominica (2008), Honduras (2008-2010), Ecuador (2009), St. Vincent and the Grenadine Islands (2009) and Antigua and Barbuda (2009).  The subcontinent turned to the left, and this turn was met with various destabilisation attempts.  An attempt to create war in 2008 in Bolivia, a state coup in Honduras in 2009, a failed state coup in Ecuador in 2012, amongst other international pressures toward the rest of the region.

Whilst the South was negotiating the various political difficulties arising from setting into motion the mechanisms designed to fight for the protection of the people, the “developed world” sunk into an unprecedented economic crisis created by the “invisible hand of the market”.  These events are not isolated from the political and theoretical debate on contemporary international relations.  When a project like the ALBA-TCP is analysed at an academic level, inevitable questions emerge, such as; is it a scheme aimed at integration?  Is it aiming to construct a regional politics or an intra-regional free-trade agreement?  Is the ALBA-TCP a formula to confront the negative effects of globalisation, or is it a strategy to enter into this process but from a stronger position?

All these questions have answers, which are still vague and somewhat open to debate, if we analyse the process of ALBA’s creation and consolidation from the perspective of theories on new “postliberal” regionalisms in Latin America and their relationship to globalisation.  It is evident that ALBA-TCP was not conceived of as a scheme for regional integration, but rather as a political alliance to put a stop to FTAA which was progressively transformed into a collaborative mechanism which helped to strengthen real cooperation between countries in the regional South.

It is too soon to predict what a final regional integration project in South America would look like, but what we can confirm is that the ALBA has allowed for the creation of new forms of exchange and communication between countries that were once isolated; a first step in exploring a political agenda for integration.  In this sense, ALBA-TCP is a formula for resistance to the project of globalisation.  It is impossible to deny that globalisation is a concrete reality, but it doesn’t mean that countries have to throw themselves into its choppy seas without a lifejacket; the consolidation of strong regions is needed in order to confront the contradictions of the world system in which we live.

The ALBA-TCP, as Maria del Carmen Almendras Camargo defined it in the celebrations for the alliance’s 7th anniversary in Madrid, February 2012, is a “regional integration bloc made up of 8 countries with a population of 71 million inhabitants and a GDP of 498 billion dollars.  It is the second largest trading bloc in the Latin American and Caribbean region after Mercosur, which has enormous human and natural resource potential.”

As ALBA begins to consolidate independently as a definite regional integration scheme, it is mutating and fusing with other integration strategies such as UNASUR and CELAC.  On its 7th anniversary there are a whole host of reasons to celebrate; it has demonstrated that it is possible to say NO to the great global powers and design an independent and sovereign politics which can pave the way to a multi-polar world.  Like the maestro Simón Rodriguez even said himself, we invent or we err.

Tahina Ojeda Medina is a researcher at the Development and Cooperation Institute at the Complutense University in Madrid ((IUDC-UCM), graduate in International Relations and a lawyer from the Central University of Venezuela, M.S in International Cooperation, Masters in Contemporary Latin American Studies and Doctorate in Political Science at the Complutense University in Madrid.

Translated by Rachael Boothroyd for Venezuelanalysis.com

Source: Ciudad CCS

May 7th 2012

The Organization of American States (OAS) electoral observation mission calls the May 07, 2012 general election in The Bahamas - “free and fair”

OAS labels elections ‘free and fair’

By Guardian Staff Reporter
travis@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Calling Monday’s general election “free and fair”, the Organization of American States (OAS) electoral observation mission yesterday offered four preliminary recommendations to The Bahamas government after monitoring the country’s electoral process.

The OAS team recommended the “adoption of a legal framework on the financing of political parties and campaigns in order to enhance the accountability, transparency and equity of the democratic process”.

The team also recommended the process of redrawing constituency boundaries and the membership of the Boundaries Commission be independent of the government.

This recommendation was also an issue visited in the 2002 referendum.

The majority of Bahamians polled (57,291) voted against the creation of an independent Boundaries Commission, with 30,903 voting in favor of it.

The mission also encouraged the Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas (BCB) to “provide access to all political parties and candidates in a free, fair and independent manner”.

The mission also encouraged political parties to incorporate more women in leadership positions and as candidates.

“[The year 2012] marks the 50th anniversary of women’s suffrage in The Bahamas,” said Alfonso Quinonez, chief of the mission for the observation team.

“For this election there were, 18,574 more women than men registered as voters. However, the increased participation of women as voters has not yet translated into other key areas of political participation. Only 22 out of the 133 candidates for this election were women.”

Former prime minister and Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Hubert Ingraham noted on the campaign trail that women would be a deciding factor in the election.

This was the first time that outside observers were invited to monitor an election in The Bahamas.

Teams from the OAS and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) were at various polling divisions on Monday.

Quinonez said it was an honor to observe the general election and noted that his team monitored 30 constituencies on election day.

“OAS international observers visited 189 polling stations throughout election day,” he told reporters.

“In all observed cases police were present and helpful to ensure a peaceful atmosphere. Voter participation was high and estimated at 88 percent.”

Quinonez pointed out that the mission would soon present to the OAS permanent council a detailed report that would be made available on the OAS’ website.

May 09, 2012

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

That bandit Chavez and the upstart Iweala!

By Dr Richard A. Byron-Cox




President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is sick. His is a cancer case. And some in Venezuela, the US and our Caribbean, having branded him dangerously pesky, are fervently if silently praying that the illness prevails, speedily coffining-off this Venezuelan bad boy to the permanent silence of the grave. The Venezuelans and North Americans who wish this, need not concern us here. Suffice to say, the former find it difficult to challenge his popularity at home, while the latter are in contemptuous disbelief that “this Latino” has the cojones to question them. Our concern therefore is the Caribbean ones who want to see the back of Hugo. The question is why?
 

Their given reasons are too many for discussion in an article of a few hundred words. Consequently, we zero in on the cardinal ones, highlighting their merits or lack therefore.


Prophecies abound in some quarters that the Chavez-motored ALBA will ultimately lead to the death of CARICOM through the poaching of its members. The reality however is that many CARICOM states are members of other groupings, including the Association of Caribbean States, the OAS, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and El Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana (SICA). Membership in these organisations has proven non-hazardous to the existence of CARICOM. So from whence is this hue and cry about el bandido venezolano trying to destroy CARICOM? Is this really serious!

Some, declaring concern for our democracy, are adamant that Chavez’s dictatorial hold on power is alien and dangerously contagious to us. Since birds of a feather flock together, they advise we stick with our crowd, maintaining a healthy distance from his corrupting influence. Truth be told, Hugo’s road to power was elections certified by all and sundry to be free and fair. He has won six straight and, though cancer stricken, is preparing to face the polls again. Isn’t it incredible that a man dubbed a dictator so readily embraces and subjects to the democratic exercise of the will of the people? Could this concern therefore be a case of people crying wolf while slaughtering a shepherd?

Others prescribe strict precautionary measures when engaging this socialist bosom buddy of those unrepentant communists, Fidel and his petit frère, Raul. The rumour is that Chavez is hell-bent on emulating the Castros by nationalising the entire Venezuelan economy. Then, he would dictate that our Caribbean leaders follow his lead, denying us all, the freedom of enterprise. This is naught but scaremongering and quatsch. While Chavez has nationalised a few industries in the crucial oil sector, free enterprise is most certainly alive and well in Venezuela after more than a decade of his presidency! This is self-evident truth. Further, Cuba itself is “liberating” its economy more and more, (granted not in the manner that the US, that self-proclaimed champion and self-appointed world evangelist of laissez faire economics would like).

It is also said that Chavez and Venezuela have been historically, politically and culturally conditioned differently from the way we were. We should therefore stick steadfastly to our kith and kin, which he certainly is not. But the argument that Venezuela is not Caribbean is questionable, not in the least for the simple fact that its northern coast is washed by the Caribbean Sea. So if being “Latino” makes Chavez foreign to us, then what of our relations with China, Brazil, Israel and, yes, the powerful white-dominated troika of Europe, Canada and the US? Are these our kith and kin? Lest we forget, this latter three comprise the G7 club where not even the emerging giants of the BRICS are welcome, not to mention us. Indeed, they have condemned us to the periphery of the world arena after having enslaved and exploited us for centuries. Oh yes, that is the inconvenient truth!

But all the aforesaid pales in comparison with what these fundamental “democrats,” and sworn guardians of the “free market” universally agree is President Chavez’s unpardonable sin: questioning the US’s self-appropriated status of world gendarme, and him being perceived as recruiting CARICOM states into his mercenary anti-gendarme gang. Not known for reticence, Chavez’s caustic anti-Yankee rhetoric is proffered as evidence that he is a threat to the one with the big stick? But has Chavez’s indignant rejection of US self-proclaimed imperium in the region hurt the relations between the CARICOM and the US? The clear and unequivocal answer is no.

Why then all this hullabaloo of Chavez and ALBA being of such grave danger to the CARICOM Caribbean? I dare to postulate that the key to it all is Chavez’s courage to question Uncle Sam on the one hand, and the cowardice of some in CARICOM on the other who shudder at the mere thought of this being possible. Indeed some of the latter are akin to an Uncle Sam poodle, which rushes to retrieve the thrown stick, but changes into a pit-bull if they merely think that you are attacking their master. So it’s no headline news that they are merciless to Hugo, even at this hour of his grave ailment.

All supra dictum have me wondering why these eternally loyal Uncle Toms have not gone paranoid on Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala due to her recent challenge of Yankee imperium over the World Bank?

Madam Iweala, like Hugo, has boldly rejected the US’s Jesus complex, and its self-belief in its global messiah role. She had the audacity to declare her candidacy for president of the Bank, insisting that she was the best suited. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Sure she is Harvard trained; is an economist; holds a PhD; is a minister of finance; was a World Bank director… In short, she has a CV of relevance longer than from Suriname to Bermuda and wider than from Bridgetown to Belize City.

So what’s the problem? It’s rather simple. Ab initio, the World Bank has been a most valued piece of hardware in the US’s arsenal of economic weaponry, especially as regards execution of its policy towards the so-called Third World. It is particularly useful for disguising, when and where necessary, the US’s real intent; and is central to the US’s ability to directly dictate economic policy in most developing nations. Now here comes this Third World-black-African upstart demanding that this important column of US global economic imperium be surrendered to her, publicly declaring that suitability, and not economic and military hegemony should determine who gets to be president of the Bank!

Yes, Iweala is indeed a terrorist, for as George W. Bush said, who is not with the US is against it. Let’s not be self-deceiving. The World Bank is as much an instrument of US power as the most potent piece of weaponry in its military. Iweala’s open challenge to US suzerainty on this front is an affront, just as Hugo’s stance is as regards their behaviour in the region. Like him, she is contemptuous of the idea that American dictates is leges legume, convinced that it does not always lead to what is boni et aequi. Yet, she was spared the crucifixion that cancer-stricken Chavez must bear. I wonder why? It’d be interesting to know.

May 07, 2012
 
caribbeannewsnow
 

Bahamas Blog International

Labour Day in Haiti

By Jean H Charles


In a country where 89% of the population endure unemployment or underemployment, more than 500,000 people, mostly young ones, turned out into the vast yard of Haiti’s Ministry of Agriculture to celebrate International Labour Day on May 1.

Indeed on Labour Day, the rest of the world (with the exception of the United States that celebrates its own on the first Monday of September) takes a day of rest to give homage to the punishment that God sanctioned man to: “You shall now eat your bread from the sweat of your labour.”

Early in the day, I took public transportation to go to the Ministry of Agriculture, located on the outskirts of the city of Port au Prince, to attend the fiesta of three days that features the art, the food, the agricultural experiments and the produce of Haiti. I knew, there would be a massive traffic jam later when the whole city would take the only road leading to the event. Indeed by midday, only a helicopter could get you into the Labour Fair.

President Michel Martelly, freshly minted from a week’s stay at a hospital in Miami, recuperating from pulmonary embolism, plunged himself into the affection of the crowd to urge the Haitian people to make the duty of work, a labour of love to remake Haiti the pearl of the islands when labour was total hell.

The president, as well as his Minister of Agriculture, Heber Doctor, and his Minister of Social Affairs and Labour, Francois Lafaille, that sponsored the event, took the artistic decorated podium (a master work of Sisalco, a Haitian company that produces designer bags, trays and other home products made of sisal) to urge the crowd and the nation to take advantage of the new vision of the government in terms of agriculture that focuses on four different features: guaranteed food security for all; guaranteed revenue for those who work hard and play by the rules; protection of the natural resources; and contribution for bringing foreign currencies into the country.

I was already into the path of that new locomotive when, last week I was invited to Cape Haitian (on the northern coast of Haiti) to a spectacular forum organized by the very articulate and ebullient Under Secretary of Agriculture for vegetal production, Mr Fresner Dorcin. For the first time in Haitian politics, a ministry is pulling all the actors and founding agencies together to share their knowledge, their constraints and their vision on agriculture in a given catchment area: the northern and northeast part of Haiti. 

This caravan will go from county to county in duplicating the model developed in the north of Haiti. Secretary Dorcin has pulled off a energetic team made of the best agronomists in the country, ready to kill the sacred cows and the old inertia that incubate the culture where each director of the ministry has his own little program that has nothing to do with a coordinated vision of the modern management of agriculture in a country where 90% of the population are involved in a way or the other in the business of agriculture.

The mood in Haiti is comparable to the mood in the rest of the world on Labour Day. No more those massive demonstrations of workers united to celebrate the symbol and the achievements of communism and socialism (down with capitalism!) in the capitals of the former Soviet Union, its satellites and its wannabe satellites. The crowd in Haiti was festive and in a spirit of jubilance, not a single incident of violence in a mass of half a million people, most of them still looking for work or a ready market for their creativities.

I was proud to be a native of Haiti amongst this gargantuan demonstration of creativity in decorative arts, happy as a lad going from booth to booth in sampling the different culinary specialties of each county of Haiti.

Upon stumbling on a giant fruit that I did not know before (I knew later its name was jacqier, a native of India), I was ready to buy the produce and play the Christopher Columbus game (transporting one seed from east to west of the world) when Mr Brunel Garcon, a friend from high school, who in the meantime became an official of the cabinet of the minister of agriculture, intervened to help me to get the gargantuan fruit free of charge. 

I profited from my proximity on the stage with the minister of agriculture to conduct a long and debating conversation on the policy of agriculture in Haiti. Should the government incubate and facilitate the business of agriculture as countries such as Japan, the United States and the European Union or should this government stay out of the business of incubation and let the market and investors have free hand?

At the level of the political platform of Repons Peyizan, the party in power (freshly reconciled in a warm and intimate relationship with the government) is leading a movement to enrich each peasant family in the territory of the republic. 

The program is a cocktail of husbandry, organic agriculture and art-craft where the party, through its social organization, will incubate each family to engage into those activities that will generate a minimum of $15,000 dollars per year in the next five years from the paltry $400 dollars per year today.

The party is attaching itself to an anchor agency to actualize its goal and its mission. The program is starting in the region of Jacmel, in the southeastern part of Haiti, with the support of the technical mission of Taiwan at the beginning of this month.

The debate initiated with the minister of agriculture is still open. Will Haiti follow the model seen in the other Western countries where the number of agricultural workers take a dip on the lower side as the country becomes richer or should Haiti lead the way again in the world where it can demonstrate it can retain its agricultural workers in their fields and on their land, where they will lead a happy and pastoral life with niche markets for specialized and organic products?

Haiti is today at an exciting place. It has a new president, soon a new government, dynamic ready to shake the inertia of arrogance, incompetence and indifference of the last sixty years of governance in the country. Its young population of almost 8 million people out of a nation of 10 million people is ready to engage into the world of work with the creativity which is proper to the Haitian people.

Haiti is indeed open for business! Businessmen of the world unite! See you in Haiti soon!


May 5, 2012


caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

...the shifting political sands in The Bahamas find Bahamian Prime Minister -Hubert Ingraham - facing a general election to win a fourth term in government for the governing Free National Movement (FNM) party

The Shifting Sands Of Bahamian Politics

tribune242 
Nassau, The Bahamas


 LADY PINDLING'S appearance at the PLP's Clifford Park rally Friday night - to "set the record straight" for her "PLP family" - brought back many memories of the upheaval created by the Commission of Inquiry into drugs. It also highlighted the shifting sands of politics.

In her talk to her political family, Lady Pindling deliberately avoided the fact that her late husband's anointed successor was fired by him from the PLP cabinet in the eighties. She wanted the gullible crowd to believe that it was only Prime Minister Ingraham who was given orders to "walk the plank."

She also wanted her flock to understand that not only did Sir Lynden anoint Mr Christie as his successor, but Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield also would have liked him to have been his political heir. Anyone who recalled those times would find this assertion almost laughable.

It is true that at the time both Mr Christie and Mr Ingraham were hedging their bets about their political future. They both agreed that they would continue in politics, the question was how? Join an existing political party or remain Independent?

After the Commission of Inquiry, they both expressed concern about corruption, which former PLP Loftus Roker had earlier warned was "rocking the PLP to its very foundations." Because of their position -- particularly Mr Ingraham's -- they were both fired from the Pindling Cabinet. Mr Ingraham was later expelled from the PLP, while Mr Christie at the last minute was rejected as a PLP candidate in the 1987 election. Both decided to go it alone, winning a decisive victory in the 1987 election, unopposed by the FNM. They were the first Independent candidates to do so in the history of the modern Bahamas.

They were both weighing the possibility of joining a political party. Mr Ingraham, the more decisive of the two, was not certain which route he would take. However, he knew the route he would not take. Mr Christie was not so sure. He said he was still "philosophically committed to those principles" that originally attracted him to the PLP. He was not talking with the FNM, but he was talking with the PLP.

And so when Sir Lynden dangled a Cabinet post in front of him, he could not resist. He had his future made, no more time wasting fighting for his principles in the trenches. He was secure at the top.

The Tribune at the time speculated that Mr Christie would go back to the PLP. For all the years he was in the political wilderness, no reporter could ever draw him out on his opinions. Mr Christie promised interviews that he never kept. When he did go back he said he told Sir Lynden on two occasions: "My brother, I hope you realise that my silence is a statement."

Is that the way we are today to interpret his silence on issues on which he should be vocal -- particularly the allegations of corruption in his own party?

Not so Mr Ingraham. He said he was sorry to see his law partner and friend heading back to the PLP ship. "But that's his right to do," he added. "

I determined a long time ago," he said, "that the ship was taking the Bahamas in the wrong direction and it continues to be my goal to stop the ship."

He closed his ears to Sir Lynden's siren song to come back on board.

Today, Mr Ingraham is still determined to stop the PLP ship. Mr Christie, on the other hand, continues to face what Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield described at the time as "one of his biggest hurdles" -- credibility.

Never far from the limelight, today's Fox Hill PLP candidate Fred Mitchell, who in those days headed his own political party -- the PDF-- demonstrated with placards outside of the House of Assembly calling for Mr Christie's resignation. He claimed that Mr Christie had broken his agreement with his supporters in Centreville by returning to the PLP. There were even PLP MPs who were upset that Mr Christie -- once the prodigal son-- had leap-frogged over all of them to a top position on his return to the fold.

Mr Mitchell felt Mr Christie was morally bound to resign his seat in Parliament when he decided to accept the Cabinet appointment.

Mr Mitchell maintained that Mr Christie had broken his political contract with his constituents who had returned him to parliament to oppose PLP corruption.

In the meantime, Mr Ingraham was still at war in the House with the PLP government for challenging the right of the Public Accounts Committee to "send for persons or papers" to do its work. Mr Ingraham was a member of that committee. He said that there was "crookedness" in the government's 1987 audited accounts, and that an attempt was being made to cover-up what was going on with the government's finances.

Today the shifting political sands find Prime Minister Ingraham facing a general election to win a fourth term in government for the FNM.

Meanwhile, Mr Christie, leader of the Opposition, hopes to replace him on May 7. As for Mr Mitchell -- whose dream was one day to become prime minister -- has himself returned to the PLP and serves under the man who he felt betrayed his supporters by returning to the PLP.

Politics is certainly a fickle throw of the dice.

May 02, 2012

tribune242

Bahamas Blog international

Bahamas: ...Is there a glass ceiling for Bahamian women in politics?

Is there a glass ceiling for Bahamian women in politics?

By Melisa Hall

Margaret Thatcher, England’s first female prime minister, stated that “if you want something said ask a man and if you want something done ask a woman”.

I feel that this quote is so relevant to the success of the political party that will be victorious because no matter what your political affiliation is, if you are seeking to be victorious in this election it’s going to take the support of the Bahamian female voter.

This was confirmed nationally on April 10, where it was reported that Hubert Ingraham stated: “Women will decide the outcome of the next general election.”

The statistics indicated that registered female voters outnumber male registered voters by 20,000 – of which we all know is not surprising.  When we take an international perspective, we see that in the United States there is also much political debate about the role that women will play in its elections, and the echo remains the same:  Women will decide who wins the 2012 election.

With statistics and statements like these, it clearly indicates how significant, powerful and influential we are as women.  We have the power to make or break things, we determine who will win or lose, consequently our individual decisions will corporately and politically impact our nation.

However, if we as Bahamian women have so much power and influence to make such determinations for our country, why are we so underrepresented in the political arena and why have we yet to elect a female prime minister?   Is this trend indicative of the notion that politics is a man’s world and women belong in their homes and should remain in the private realm as opposed to the public realm?

Women in politics

While we must acknowledge the significant strides women have made in politics there is indeed a grave level of underrepresentation.   Under the current government administration there are only five female members of Parliament out of the 41.   They are Loretta Butler-Turner and Verna Grant from the Free National Movement (two).  And from the Progressive Liberal Party there are three, which include Glenys Hanna-Martin, Cynthia “Mother” Pratt and Melanie Griffin.

When we look at the female political candidates who have had the courage to step forward to either enter or remain in the political arena we see that there is hope for an increase in the representation of women in politics.   The Free National Movement has nine female candidates, the Progressive Liberal Party has five and the Democratic National Alliance has six female candidates.

Having said that, we see that women in The Bahamas have ascended and advanced to high ranking official positions like that of female presidents of the Court of Appeal, governor general, heads of the Senate and, as mentioned, members of Parliament.   But the only time we have seen any female rise anywhere near the position of prime minister other than in the capacity of “acting” was under the Progressive Liberal Party administration when Cynthia “Mother” Pratt was the deputy prime minister.

Therefore, we must ask the question as to whether or not there exists for Bahamian women in politics a glass ceiling, as we have yet to see equal representation in Parliament or even near the 30 percent desired quota that is advanced and advocated around the world for women representation in Parliament.

When we take a look globally and even more closely at our Caribbean sister nations, we see that culturally there has been an acceptance of female prime ministers and presidents like Portia Simpson Miller in Jamaica, Kamla Persad-Bissessar in Trinidad and Tobago, the late Janet Jagan of Guyana, the late Dame Eugenia Charles of Dominica, who served for 15 years, and Margaret Thatcher, the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom, who served for a period of 10 years.

From a biblical perspective, we see that women like Deborah and Esther were instrumental in saving nations.   For example, when the Israelities were oppressed by Jabin the King of Canaan, Deborah prevailed upon Barak, the head captain of the army, to face the Assyrian General Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s Army in battle.   With the help of Barak and Jael, another woman, the Israelites achieved an unlikely victory over Sisera’s force and there was peace in the land for 40 years.

In a radio interview on Gems 105.9 on April 14, on the weekly women’s radio show, “Business, Money & Women”, I asked two courageous female political candidates of their opinions as to whether or not they felt there was a glass ceiling for Bahamian women in politics and why they felt The Bahamas has yet to elect a female prime minister.  Both candidates shared similar opinions.  Kelphene Cunningham, the Democratic Nation Alliance (DNA) candidate for Garden Hills, said she did not think that there exists a glass ceiling and that it’s all about timing and at the right time we as women would achieve that major accomplishment.

Cleola Hamilton, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) candidate for South Beach, said there were no limits to what we can accomplish as women and that gender does not play a significant role in what one achieves.

I must say that I admire both of these women for offering themselves for political service at such a crucial time like this.   However, does this mean that perhaps in our next generation we would see the rise of a female prime minister?

According to the historical data we see that women can handle power and that we can and will take charge where and when we are needed.   Women are indeed breaking down barriers around the world and shattering the so-called “glass ceiling”.  While there are many mixed opinions about “the glass ceiling” notion I want you to know that while it is real and wrong, we as women must be careful not to create our own ceilings by placing virtual limits upon ourselves to explain our lack of progress, disappointments and circumstances beyond our control.

While we need more powerful women represented in Parliament, it does not mean that we must take power away from men to accomplish this.   What we need to do is create and embrace our own power.

When will we break through?

We should note that in the past we have seen many other Bahamian women break glass ceilings in their respective areas, like that of Janet Bostwick who was the first female member of Parliament elected, attorney general of The Bahamas and the first to act as deputy prime minister; Dame Ivy Dumont, first female governor general of The Bahamas; Italia Johnson, the first female speaker of the House of Assembly; Dr. Doris Johnson, the first female president of the Senate, with Sharon Wilson as the second; Ruby Ann Cooper-Darling, first woman to register to vote.

We also see that as we study the lives of successful women that women do have the power to break through barriers, ceilings, or societal limitations that may arise.   However, we as women must work together to help each other succeed.  When one of us succeeds we all succeed.

For those of you who may have career, entrepreneurial or political aspirations but perceive that there is a glass ceiling that may prevent you from progressing, here are few things you can do to achieve your goals to shatter the glass above your head.

1. Be courageous and strategic: Have a plan for your career and for the climb up the political ladder.   Network strategically with men and women.  Find a mentor and a coach.   Have a system and a support system.

2. Be prepared to take risks: Remember Queen Esther in the Bible.   She was automatically excluded because of her background and where she came from, and she could have claimed a “glass ceiling exemption”.  She yet went from orphan to Queen by stepping out of her traditional role to change the course of history.

3. Be prepared, have a strong sense of purpose, confidence and patience: You must prepare yourself, educationally, financially, spiritually and politically.   Know what your purpose is and be confident in knowing that while obstacles and trials may come you have the power to overcome and break through barriers.

4. Remember successful people leave clues: You should study the lives of successful women to see how did they break through, what set them apart and what skills or expertise they possessed.

As we prepare to go to the voting polls on May 7, it is important that we as women make sound decisions about the future of this nation which will affect future generations.   Remember the power that is within us to merge together to make a difference and that as we are the determining persons who will decide who wins the election, we will also decide whether or not we will become personally empowered to play a significant political role in our government.

Finally, we must ask ourselves in which generation will we follow suit and elect a female prime minister?   Is it in my generation, or my daughter’s generation?

• MELISA HALL is an attorney, advocate for women empowerment and business coach.  To find out more information you may contact her at 341-2204, reach her via Facebook, Twitter or email her at:kwibsuccess@gmail.com

Apr 27, 2012

thenassauguardian

Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

Trinidad and Tobago and the CCJ

By Ian Francis:


There comes a time during the lifespan of any administration when rapid decisions and press commentaries will be made about an important public policy decision headed to the lower House of Parliament.  It came as no surprise when Madam Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago announced that the Republic will withdraw from the criminal appellate division of the British Privy Council and hand over this piece of the pie to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).


While the prime minister’s announcement is a public policy step in the right direction, it is extremely difficult to rationalize her apparent pro-colonial thinking that the oligarchic Privy Council should still have some say in the final disposal of civil and constitutional matters.  Madam Prime Minister, I strongly disagree with you and you should seriously re-think this one.

I strongly submit that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago consider the following: 1) Make a total break with the Privy Council; 2) Establish a good regional example to other CARICOM leaders who have been shamelessly vacillating on the CCJ; and 3) move expeditiously and include all the appellate jurisdictions, as the Republic’s decision is long overdue.  Taking a slice and leaving another in the cupboard for later is not good politics for an independent nation.  The late prime minister, Dr Eric Williams, would have taken everything away.

Since her intended policy announcement to cut and share a slice of the pie, it was quite refreshing to read the comments of Dr Rowley expressing support for the move.  While Dr. Rowley’s comments are helpful and will move the process forward, as opposition leader, he has the right to suggest amendments to the proposed bill by reminding the prime minister that the whole cake should be brought home.

Panday’s comments were not surprising as he is stuck in the “never come back mode”, discredited and very irrelevant to Trinidad public affairs.  While his former United National Congress (UNC) must be given credit for supporting the creation of the CCJ and providing a headquarters in Port of Spain, it is time for him to move beyond the referendum concept.

Panday’s desire to ensure citizen participation in making a break with the Privy Council should not be based on a national referendum.  It is the responsibility of the national government to design and implement a public information program that would increase awareness and understanding about the CCJ, the need for disengagement from the Privy Council and to minimize ambivalence about the process. Therefore, Panday, in his irrelevant political era, should re-think this referendum strategy.

About one year after assuming the chair of CARICOM, Prime Minister Dr Douglas of St Kitts and Nevis was equivocally clear about the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) membership in the CCJ.  If my memory serves me right, Dr Douglas stated that OECS members had found a mechanism for direct membership in the CCJ that would avoid constitutional referendum in most OECS nations. Prime Minister Douglas demitted the rotational chair and nothing more was heard about the “found mechanism”.

Regional ambivalence about the CCJ is a reality.  It is embedded amongst distinguished regional legal luminaries, government leaders and of course certain criminal elements who have successfully scored points with the Privy Council.  However, at the end of the day, reality, political common sense and breaking the yoke of colonialism are important milestones that regional CARICOM governments must pursue.

Membership in the CCJ is of vital necessity and the region is encumbered with distinguished jurists who can perform as well or even better than some of the British Privy Council cronies.

So, once again, Guyana, Barbados and Belize must be commended for their efforts and contribution to the CCJ.  Regional governments have vacillated for too long and treated the CCJ membership with the utterance of dishonesty and tomfoolery to the region’s population.

The CCJ must be recognized and accepted as our final appellate court in all criminal, civil and constitutional matters.


April 28, 2012


caribbeannewsnow

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie backtracked on a statement he made a week ago ...confirming that Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) was benefiting from advice he was providing as a consultant for Davis and Co. law firm

Christie backtracks on oil statment

PLP leader contradicts earlier admission on issue

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie last night backtracked from a statement he made a week ago confirming that Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) was benefiting from advice he was providing as a consultant for Davis & Co. law firm.

Christie said in a statement he no longer works as a consultant for the firm. He said the professional relationship was severed “well before” the issue became a controversy.

However, the press release contradicted statements Christie made during a recent telephone interview with The Nassau Guardian that was recorded with his consent.

In that interview, Christie indicated he was still providing advice for BPC, which is seeking approval from the Bahamas government to drill for oil in Bahamian waters.

Last Thursday, Christie said he is a consultant for Davis & Co. and gives legal advice for BPC. He made no mention of the relationship being over — in fact refering to the advice he is ‘now’ giving.

“It’s not a conflict because the advice I’m giving now has nothing to do with any decisions I [will] make as prime minister,” he said.

Davis & Co., the law firm owned by Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Deputy Leader Philip Davis, is one of two Bahamian firms that represent the oil company.

“Once we became in Opposition, part of the professional services I render is by way of a legal consultancy to Davis & Co,” the PLP leader said last week.

“As a part of the legal consultancy, I consult on work the firm deems I am qualified by the office I’ve had, by the knowledge I have in terms of government and by my own grasp of the legal principles involved in issues to do with governance. So that is my consultancy and that embraces whether [it’s] matters of tourism or in this case, Bahamas Petroleum.”

The revelation that Christie is providing advice for BPC was made by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham last week, after Ingraham was asked by The Nassau Guardian about the issue of oil drilling.

Christie confirmed he was providing advice through Davis & Co. after he was contacted by The Guardian and questioned on the matter.

During that interview, Christie expanded on the advice he gives to the oil company through Davis & Co.

“If there is an issue they need advice on, if they need someone to speak to the issue of environmental impacts, the issue of whether or not in my judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ, who should go on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm in the event that the firm regards it as necessary they would consult me on it — those are the services I provide,” Christie said.

Last night, he said his working relationship with Davis & Co. and BPC is over.

“Well before this current controversy, which is motivated solely by Ingraham’s last-minute attempts to derail his impending loss, my consulting arrangement with Davis & Co., which represented BPC among many other clients, had expired.  Thus, I am not currently advising BPC in any manner,” said the statement.

Christie’s admission last week has been the subject of several attacks from Ingraham and the Free National Movement.

On Wednesday night, Ingraham labeled Christie an oil lobbyist and said the PLP leader’s ability to lead the country is now compromised because of his relationship with BPC.

Yesterday, members of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) demonstrated outside the Office of the Leader of the Opposition on Parliament Street and demanded his resignation over the matter.

Last night, Christie said the criticism was politically motivated and added that his ethics are above reproach.

“They are losing, we are winning, and they are inventing new charges and distractions,” he said.

Christie added that when permits for oil exploration were granted by his administration he ensured that stringent environmental restrictions were imposed.

He said the Ingraham administration did not adhere to the same strict policies when it granted oil exploration licenses.

“The current prime minister had a different approach, issuing oil exploration permits with no serious environmental conditions whatsoever,” Christie said.

Christie also said if the PLP wins the next election oil drilling would only be considered once there is a full regulatory system to ensure that stringent safety and environmental protection systems are in place and after there is a national consensus on the issue.

Christie said his party would put the issue to a national referendum if necessary.

Apr 27, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Looking back on the Cuba distraction at Cartagena

By Roman Suver

Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs



On the weekend of April 14th and 15th, Colombia hosted the Sixth Summit of the Americas, as 33 inter-American governments convened in Cartagena to discuss a broad host of topics. Dominating the agenda were scheduled discussions of the ongoing War on Drugs and the prospects of debating the legalizing of cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs in an effort to reduce criminal drug trafficking and the rampant violence it has brought to Latin America.

Other notable discussions included the newly-inflamed Falklands/Malvinas Islands conflict and new sovereignty claims over the territory by Argentina, as well as Latin American criticism of the United States’ expansionary monetary policy as a response to the ongoing European debt crisis.

The most contentious and prominent of discussion topics, however, was the continuing exclusion of Cuba from OAS-sponsored gatherings, including the previous five Summits of the Americas, and this newest meeting in Cartagena. The issue dominated news coverage leading up to the Summit, and despite hopes by many that the US would relent in its unilateral opposition to Cuba’s participation in OAS activities, President Barack Obama instead reaffirmed the US’ long-held default stance on the matter. To this end, he stated that Cuban authorities have “shown no interest in changing their relationship with the United States, nor any willingness to respect the democratic and human rights of the Cuban people.”

This pronouncement and the US opposition to Cuba’s future involvement in OAS-related hemispheric gatherings effectively acted as a unilateral veto, as Canada was the only other summit attendee to oppose Cuba’s reintegration, though Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly considered supporting the majority position on Cuba’s unconditional re-admittance. This stubborn and clearly ideologically-based US move served to do nothing but further alienate the US from the region at a time when it is actively attempting to build both economic and political alliances.

Furthermore, by exacerbating the divide between traditional US pan-American policy and the Latin American position through his comments, Obama ensured that the topic of Cuba would continue to dominate the discussion throughout the summit, instead of allowing for a unified hemispheric discourse on other important and pressing regional matters to command media attention. Not surprisingly, amidst the polarizing environment in Cartagena, the Sixth Summit of the Americas concluded without a joint declaration on the agenda’s subjects, further accentuating the dysfunctional nature of current hemispheric politics.

Ahead of the Summit, Ecuador’s President, Rafael Correa, wrote a letter to the summit’s host, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, in which he declared his intention to boycott the meeting in protest of Cuba’s ongoing exile. He further pledged that Ecuador would boycott any future gatherings that excluded Cuba as long as he remains in office, and urged fellow ALBA members to do the same. While it appeared last week that no other nation would take similar steps, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega abstained from attending at the last minute, boycotting the event on the same grounds as Correa, despite his government’s presence in Cartagena.

There had been speculation prior to the meeting that some Latin American countries, especially those with memberships in ALBA, would decline to join Ecuador in boycotting the event in hopes that the US would soften its position on Cuba during the weekend’s meeting, making a gesture that could worsen trade relations with the US unnecessary. However, after Obama’s steadfast reiteration of the US stance, all eight ALBA members moved swiftly to decry the Cuban situation, vowing to boycott all subsequent Summits of the Americas if Cuba is not granted unconditional participation. Perhaps not so surprisingly, this same sentiment was echoed by some of South America’s most influential nations, including Mercosur members Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

The increasingly vocal and adamant calls for Cuba’s inclusion by Latin America, and the growing number of provocative comments being made by Latin American leaders about ending North American hegemony in the region, are ominous signs for the abiding strength of the US influence in the region. With the prospect of the majority of the next Summit’s attendees boycotting the event under the current status quo, the future of the OAS and North American participation in Latin American affairs appears noticeably bleak.

There are already a number of regional organizations which exclude the US and Canada, CELAC and UNASUR among them, and their increasing relevance to international cooperation in the Americas does not bode well for North America. If the US continues to persistently adhere to its current stance on Cuba through to the 2015 Seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama, there is a distinct possibility that the OAS could lose all legitimacy as well as its influence as exasperated Latin American countries refuse to participate.

This could lead to both a rethinking of US policy towards Cuba, and greater cooperation and concessions by the US, pursuant to a more unified and egalitarian Western Hemisphere dynamic. Conversely, if the US continues its archaic and neo-imperialistic stance, bodies like CELAC would stand to gain considerable influence, and could perhaps even replace the OAS as the hemisphere’s primary pan-American body and standard-bearer for regional cooperation.

In either scenario, the inescapable reality becomes quite clear; no matter how US policy towards Latin America evolves in the near future, the US’ longstanding and powerful influence in Central and South America is beginning to wane. Newly developing export markets and swift economic growth in Latin America are bolstering the region’s ability to function independently of more developed powers like the US, and the more the region continues to develop, the stronger its thirst for self-determinism will become.

As Central and South America continue to modernize in their quest to join the ranks of developed world powers, the US will continue to watch its previously formidable regional will diminish. The more Washington is willing to proactively amend its foreign policy towards Latin America to promote a more respectful and reciprocal partnership arrangement, the better its prospects will become in forging long-term amicable alliances and beneficial economic partnerships with a rapidly upsurging region.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit ww.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

April 26, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: ...Support conch salad for Bahamians first - and end conch exports!

Crucial Times For The Conch

Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas




FIVE centuries ago, the Amerindian inhabitants of The Bahamas lived in a completely different world from the one we know today.

Early European explorers described flocks of parrots "darkening the sky", dense hardwood forests, and sea turtles so numerous they kept sailors awake by constantly knocking against ship hulls.

Seals and iguanas crowded the shorelines; whales were a common sight offshore; and lobster, conch and fish were abundant.   Evidence for this are the large mounds of discarded conch and other shells and fish bones that are a ubiquitous feature of Lucayan archaeological sites.

And since slow-moving conch once abounded in shallow water, they became a staple food for the European settlers - giving rise to their nickname, "conchs", which persists to this day in the Florida Keys.   In The Bahamas, the sobriquet has mutated into "conchy joe" - meaning a white or mixed-race Bahamian.

When South Florida was an impenetrable wilderness, Bahamian "conchs" looked upon the Florida Keys as northern out islands.   In fact, Key West is famously known today as the conch republic, and early American dictionaries define conchs as "illiterate settlers of the Florida Keys" - meaning Bahamians, both black and white.

But today, the delectable queen conch - the one we all love to eat - is in serious trouble throughout the region.  And that Bahamian delicacy, conch salad, is in danger of becoming a thing of the past.

Florida's conch fishery collapsed decades ago, and conch harvesting was banned throughout the continental United States in 1986.

With growing evidence that conch populations were collapsing in other territories, international export permits were required for all queen conch trade in 1992.   Conch exports from the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Honduras (which used to supply the bulk of US demand) have now been suspended.

So most of the 1,000-plus metric tons of conch consumed by Americans each year is imported from a handful of countries like the Turks & Caicos, Belize and The Bahamas, where conch populations have been in somewhat better shape.   But new research shows that the Bahamian conch fishery is also in danger of collapse.

A key point to consider is that conchs don't reproduce when populations fall below a certain density.  That's because - like groupers - they gather in large spawning aggregations to breed.   Within a few days, the eggs hatch into larvae that can float more than 100 miles from their point of origin.   And after a few weeks the larvae settle on the seafloor to become juvenile conch - miniature versions of the adult mollusks we are all familiar with.

These juveniles bury themselves on the sea bottom to escape predators, spending more time on the surface as they grow, eating algae and detritus in the sand.   They take several years to mature and can live as long as 20 years.   But as we all know, they are ill-prepared to deal with human fishing pressure.

Scientists used to say that, throughout the region, only the offshore Pedro Bank in Jamaica and the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park have average densities of conch greater than the threshold needed for reproduction (about 50 adults per hectare).   But new research says that even in the Exuma park (which has been a no-take zone since 1986), conch densities have dropped 35 per cent over the last 17 years, suggesting that the population is no longer self-sustaining.

This research was conducted by Martha Davis, Catherine Booker and Dr Allan Stoner, a top scientist with the US National Marine Fisheries Service who led a multidisciplinary group studying conch ecology and conservation in the Exumas during the late 1980s.  Davis and Booker are both environmental scientists who have spent a lot of time in The Bahamas and are collaborating with Stoner on the latest research.

It was Davis who founded the non-profit research group called Community Conch, which has conducted three surveys in The Bahamas since 2009, with support from the government and local conservation groups.   The mission of Community Conch is to support sustainable conch populations in The Bahamas through research, education and collaboration with local communities.

Booker is Community Conch's field representative based in George Town, Exuma.   And tonight, she will be discussing the organization's latest research at an open public meeting in the Bahamas National Trust headquarters on Village Road, starting at 7pm.

"So far, every place we've studied in The Bahamas - Andros, the Berry Islands, and the Exuma Cays - we've seen evidence that conch stocks are declining, and in some cases severely declining," Booker told me.

"The Bahamas is now experiencing what other countries in the Caribbean have been struggling with for decades."

Community Conch has prepared a technical brief on its research, and the Department of Marine Resources is considering new policies to better manage the Bahamian conch fishery.   The brief is based on data collected 17 and 20 years ago by Dr Stoner, plus comparative data collected in the last three years by Community Conch under Dr Stoner's direction.

Researchers observed no mating at all with a density of less than 47 adult conch per hectare in the protected waters of the Exuma park, or at two traditional fishing grounds in the Berry Islands and off Andros.   Logistic modeling suggests a 90 per cent probability of mating occurring at 100 adults per hectare in the un-fished area, but mating frequencies increased more slowly with density on the fishing grounds.

"Mating frequencies were 6.3 per cent in the Berry Islands and just 2.3 per cent at Andros," the researchers said.   "In contrast to the marine reserve, 90 per cent probability of mating required 350 to 570 adults per hectare at Andros and the Berry Islands respectively."

So having more conch in the future is based on our ability to maintain sufficient population densities in the present.   And this is further complicated by the fact that the animals are slow to mature, meaning they are often harvested before they have a chance to reproduce.

According to Catherine Booker, Community Conch recently studied the relationship between the age of a conch and its stage of reproductive maturity.   "What we found, and what other scientists have found throughout the Caribbean, is that the queen conch needs to be older than we thought before it is capable of reproducing.

"We estimate age by looking at the thickness of the flared lip of the conch shell, and it turns out the lip actually needs to be about 15mm thick before a conch is sexually mature.   Based on our work and others, female conch are probably not mature until they are at least five or six years old.   Males mature a bit younger."

But the most important factor affecting conch stocks is fishing pressure.   Improved diving gear, the use of freezer storage, and habitat degradation from development all add to the dramatic decline of the fishery throughout the region.   This means that getting reliable data is key, so that marine resource managers can know what they are dealing with.

In the Berry Islands, for example, Community Conch found that juvenile populations in important nursery grounds that were studied in the 1980s had declined a thousand times to only a few hundred individuals by 2009.   And of the eight historical fishing grounds surveyed off Andros in 2010, only one had adult densities allowing minimal reproduction.

Last year, Community Conch surveyed sites in the Exuma Cays that had been previously studied by Dr Stoner and others.   They found that the overall density of adult conch had declined substantially over the past two decades, and the population had aged significantly.

"These results are expected when the adult population is not being exploited but where recruitment has slowed," Community Conch said.   "We conclude that the park is not large enough to hold a self-sustaining population... a single marine reserve such as the ECLSP cannot protect a species with pelagic larvae when the population outside the reserve is heavily exploited.   Rather, a network of marine reserves is needed to provide a chain of reproductive sources."

From this research, the scientists conclude that conch densities in commercially fished areas of The Bahamas are decreasing to levels that will not sustain the population.   Fishing grounds in the Berry Islands, Andros and Lee Stocking Island in the Exumas all show evidence of collapsing populations.

And although the Exuma park protects existing conch, there is not sufficient recruitment from outside the protected area to maintain conch populations within the park, and further decline is expected if there is no change in fishery management policies.

"Queen conch populations are rapidly declining below critical thresholds for reproduction and they are being harvested before sexual maturity," Community Conch said.   "Experience in Florida and other Caribbean nations show that recovery of conch populations is very slow after populations fall below those thresholds.   Releases of hatchery-reared conch have not been successful in rebuilding stock, and natural populations need to be conserved."

According to Booker, "the reality is that it is much easier to make management changes now before it is too late.   The current regulation of requiring a flared lip combined with minimal enforcement has produced the current situation.

"We like to say, if you can break the lip, that's an immature conch, so don't take it.   The need to set priorities and implement a conch recovery plan is critical and urgent."

New management policies recommended by the scientists include an expansion of marine reserves to include appropriate conch habitat; banning the use of hookahs to harvest conch; establishing a lip thickness criterion of 15 mm; setting quotas for conch landings; and implementing a closed season on conch between July and September.

One key recommendation is to end conch exports.   The United States now is the largest consumer of imported conch, buying more than 80 per cent of the conch available for international trade.   And conch has been legally exported from The Bahamas since 1992 - almost 600,000 pounds last year alone.   This only increases the fishing pressure on conch stocks.

"Closing off legal exports would reduce the pressure on local conch populations," Department of Marine Resources Director Michael Braynen told me recently.   "Conch exports are still allowed because fishermen say they 'need' the income, after the local demand for conch has been met."

But it makes little sense to allow the export of hundreds of thousands of pounds of conch meat every year, while watching the decline of this key Bahamian fishery.

Over the years, conch fisheries have been closed in Cuba, Florida, Bermuda, the Dutch Antilles, Colombia, Mexico, the Virgin Islands and Venezuela.

Do we really want to see the end of this cultural catch in the Bahamas? Support conch salad for Bahamians first - and end conch exports!

■What do you think? Send comments to larry@tribunemedia.net or visit http://www.bahamapundit.com/ .

April 25, 2012

tribune242

Reflections of the 2007 general election in The Bahamas

Remembering the close 2007 general election in The Bahamas

thenassauguardian editorial

Nassau, The Bahamas

Many have forgotten just how close the 2007 general election was.  Some have held on to misconceptions about that race for five years.  We recently witnessed a young Bahamian, who is keenly interested in politics, argue that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) won the popular vote in 2007, but lost the seat count.  That is incorrect.

The Free National Movement (FNM) defeated the PLP by 3,976 votes in 2007.  The FNM won 23 seats and the PLP 18.  In New Providence, the two parties fought to a virtual tie.  The FNM beat the PLP in our main island by only 1,624 votes.  In the Family Islands the FNM won by 2,352 votes.

The FNM did not win a majority of votes in that election.  The FNM ended up with 49.8 percent of the votes counted; the PLP with 46.96 percent of the vote.  Of the 41 seats contested in 2007, 10 constituencies were decided by 100 votes or less.

This race was quite a fight.  The people did not overwhelmingly want one party over the next.  It was our closest election in the popular vote since the dead heat of 1967 when the PLP secured 18,895 votes and the United Bahamian Party (UBP) 18,824 votes – a margin in favor of the PLP by only 71 votes.

For the PLP this election is a defining moment.  The party has lost three out of the last four elections.  It has been descended from the mountaintop of Bahamian politics where it was once perched during the golden years of Sir Lynden Pindling.  A fourth loss in five years would indicate a fundamental disconnect between the post-Pindling leaders of the PLP and the electorate, especially when that electorate has the choice on the other side of Hubert Ingraham.

No one energizes the PLP base more than Ingraham, a man some opposition supporters call every unholy name in the book.  However, in a direct election when it was only Ingraham and a PLP leader battling against each other, the PLP has never defeated him in a general election.

This election is a final test of post-Pindling PLPism versus the Ingraham brand (Ingraham has said he is not running again).   The FNM leader has made the declaration that it is ‘me or them’; ‘me or Christie’.

The PLP must not underestimate Ingraham.  His brash unapologetic style evolved from the rugged circumstances many Bahamians come and came from.  He has been shaped and defined by his transition from childhood poverty to wealth and power.

In a traditional election, under the circumstances that currently exist in The Bahamas, a major crime problem, a high unemployment rate and a roadwork project that has become a fiasco of sorts, the opposition should be up significantly.  However, many feel the mood remains similar to that of 2007.  The divide between Ingraham and the post-Pindling PLP is close.

If Ingraham wins again in this environment he will not only be the man who won non-consecutive back-to-back victories, he would also be the man who deposed the entire post-Pindling ruling class of the PLP.  The then opposition, having lost four of five elections, would then know that what it is, who it is, is not what the people want as compared to Pindling’s great pupil.

Much is on the line on May 7.  Legacy is at stake.

Apr 24, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial