Tough laws promised to keep criminals in prison
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
AN EXASPERATED Police Commissioner yesterday called for stiffer penalties for law breakers.
He said that criminals were not taking the law seriously because punishments were too light. In other words criminals were just playing a catch-me-if-you can game with the police, while wreaking vengeance on society.
The Commissioner was asked by the press whether the police were doing enough to stop the bloodshed -- which with 100 murders made Bahamian history over the weekend. As we wrote this column last night a report flashed across our screen that two more persons- a man and a woman- had just been shot in Nassau Village. They were taken to hospital - the man in serious condition, the woman stable.
One could almost see the Commissioner biting his tongue at yesterday's conference as he tried to gingerly skirt the reporter's question.
He said police officers were arresting the suspects, but after a person was charged it was out of their hands and up to the courts. He said he did not want to speak on the issue in too much detail.
He might not want to elaborate on what is a sore point in police ranks, but we shall do it for him.
The answer simply put is: The police are doing their job, but the courts are not.
Let's look at a five-day period to give our readers some idea of what is happening.
Between July 12 and 17th this year 39 prisoners were released from HM Prison by the courts.
Of this number 22 of them were in prison on remand. The courts gave them bail and released them.
Of these, six were charged with murder and at least three of them went before the magistrate's court with a well established criminal record.
Also among the 22 released onto the streets within a five-day period were persons charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, armed robbery, rape, housebreaking, possession of firearms and drugs, causing grievous harm, fraud and forgery. Many of them have prison records, most of them for violence. Four of them were fitted with electronic monitoring devices.
Examining their records it is obvious that they have been sent back into society without any hope of finding a job or earning an honest crust of bread to keep them alive until their court date. And so what do they do?
We leave it to our readers to answer that question. It is easy to connect the dots and understand what is happening in the country. Commissioner Greenslade has already connected the dots, but does not want to talk about the picture they present -- at least not in public.
In an England gone soft on law breakers, a sudden outbreak, mainly by youth, of rioting and destruction last month, quickly brought legislators to their senses. Vowing to stop the "slow-motion moral collapse" of his country, Prime Minister David Cameron demanded stiff penalties for law breakers. The courts immediately responded, so much so that the weak-hearted are sniffling that the law is going too far. But Cameron is taking no nonsense. He has vowed to introduce laws to "crack down on lawlessness and promote a responsible society."
He directed his cabinet to look for ways to combat a "broken society" in which "fathers had abdicated responsibility for their children, schools had given up on discipline and crimes had gone unpunished."
The courts' harsh sentences were intended to reflect the authorities' anger at the looting, burning and murder that raged through London and spread to other cities.
For example, a mother who was given a pair of shorts stolen by a rioter was jailed for five months, a student went to prison for six months for stealing a box of bottled water worth about $4, while a man was jailed for four years for posting a message on Facebook to encourage people to start a riot. Courts also remanded defendants in custody until their court hearing.
Mr Cameron was pleased that the courts had sent a tough message by stiff sentences. Across the country courts were working extra hours to deal with the offenders, which moved into the thousands.
Police Commissioner Greenslade wants sanctions tough enough to make persons afraid to carry a gun in this country because they would know that they would be removed from their family and friends for a very long time.
Since the courts don't seem inclined to step up to the plate, when the House of Assembly returns from its summer break on October 5 government plans to introduce a number of new Bills to prevent violent, repeat offenders from getting bail.
"We hope that we will provide some teeth, some additional resource, to keep these criminals behind bars," said National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest.
Some Bahamians are so agitated by the seeming indifference of the courts, that they are now suggesting that maybe there are those in the system who are trying to embarrass the government.
The situation is bad, but we hope that it is not that bad.
September 20, 2011
tribune242 editorial
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Long-term Caribbean growth requires more than current China links
By The World Bank
Robust growth over the past decade in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has had one new, key driver: China. The region’s relationship with the Asian giant has proved to be a critical source of stability, both during the global economic crisis of two years ago, the greatest since the Great Depression, and even the current market turmoil that is rolling across Europe and the United States.
So far growth forecasts for LAC have remained positive between 3.5 and 4.5 percent for 2011 and 2012 and inflation rates are expected to stat between 6 and 7 percent this year. Perceptions of sovereign risk continue to be relatively low for the region. In fact, in an unprecedented development, markets now perceive that the sovereign debt default risk of several countries in LAC -- including Chile, Colombia, and Peru -- is lower than that of France.
While the consequences of the current global uncertainties are largely out of the region’s control, it is no time to remain idle. One central question for the region today is whether it can make the most of its relationship with China to turn its recent vigorous recovery into sustainable robust growth for the future. To better understand such prospects, the World Bank’s Chief Economist’s Office for the region has issued a new report, Latin America and the Caribbean’s Long-Term Growth: Made in China?
The study takes an in-depth look at the China-LAC relationship, particularly as it compares to Japan’s interactions with East Asian economies from the 1970s to the 1990s. The report concludes that China’s role in Latin America will need to adapt and evolve if it is going to have a lasting, positive impact.
“There is little evidence that China can play a role in fostering productivity growth for Latin America and the Caribbean,” according to the World Bank’s Chief Economist for the region, Augusto de la Torre. “In this new context of lackluster economic performance in the U.S. and Europe, one key question is whether LAC can leverage its deepening connections with China and turn it into an important source of long-term growth.”
The golden years of the East Asian Tigers were characterized by large flows of intra-industry trade and foreign direct investment from Japan, with significant distribution of technology and knowledge more broadly. The first decade of China relations with Latin America have lacked much of that promising exchange.
China has become the principal trading partner for some large LAC countries. Trade between China and these nations, has revolved around the exchange of the region’s abundant natural resources for low-tech goods from China that are labor-intensive to produce. This type of trade typically limits the potential gains from technology and knowledge sharing.
That is not to say that there have been no gains from the commodity boom in the region, the report emphasizes. Some bright spots show that certain commodity sectors in LAC are benefiting from technological innovation and generating local, quality employment. Extensive networks of local businesses in Peru and Chile, for instance, are benefiting from their ties to mining extraction and salmon farming, respectively, while agricultural producing countries in the Southern Cone have showed new technology deployment and productivity gains.
Until these favourable conditions become more widespread, however, it is difficult to expect that the region will finally begin narrowing the gap with advanced nations. LAC’s growth performance over the 20th century was rather dismal – with per capita income remaining largely steady at 30 percent of the U.S. In contrast, East Asian countries saw their per capita income, which was only about 15 percent that of the U.S. in the 1960s, rise sharply and steadily to reach more than 70 percent of the U.S. by 2010.
The very fact that the region is confronted at this stage with inflationary pressures arising from strong economic activity is a clear reminder that the region tends to bump against “structural speed limits” at comparatively low growth rates.
While the high-performing economies of emerging Asia can sustain annual growth rates in the 6-9 percent range without inflationary consequences, in most of LAC the non-inflationary growth rates that can be sustained over long periods hover below 5 percent.
Some of the factors that help explain these differences in growth potential include:
-- LAC’s road density has declined 15 percent since the 1980s, while it has expanded 30 percent in the Asian countries.
-- LAC’s electricity installed capacity was about 17 percent below that of the Tigers in the 1980s. Now it is almost 50 percent below.
-- LAC’s percentage of population with tertiary education has risen from 9.5 percent in 1990 to 14.2 percent in 2009, but it pales relative to the Tigers, which has gone from 10 to 20 percent in the same period.
On the other hand, De la Torre explains “LAC has developed vibrant democratic systems that in the long term can contribute to ensure that progress in these key areas is sustainable.”
In addition, some of the key external conditions to raise LAC’s growth rate sustainably above the world’s average are in place: large and growing countries with strong demand for LAC exports; high commodity prices; and low world interest rates. Seizing the opportunity on this favorable environment will require a well-designed and adequate policy mix that maintains macro-financial stability while fostering productivity, the report concludes.
September 21, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Robust growth over the past decade in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has had one new, key driver: China. The region’s relationship with the Asian giant has proved to be a critical source of stability, both during the global economic crisis of two years ago, the greatest since the Great Depression, and even the current market turmoil that is rolling across Europe and the United States.
So far growth forecasts for LAC have remained positive between 3.5 and 4.5 percent for 2011 and 2012 and inflation rates are expected to stat between 6 and 7 percent this year. Perceptions of sovereign risk continue to be relatively low for the region. In fact, in an unprecedented development, markets now perceive that the sovereign debt default risk of several countries in LAC -- including Chile, Colombia, and Peru -- is lower than that of France.
While the consequences of the current global uncertainties are largely out of the region’s control, it is no time to remain idle. One central question for the region today is whether it can make the most of its relationship with China to turn its recent vigorous recovery into sustainable robust growth for the future. To better understand such prospects, the World Bank’s Chief Economist’s Office for the region has issued a new report, Latin America and the Caribbean’s Long-Term Growth: Made in China?
The study takes an in-depth look at the China-LAC relationship, particularly as it compares to Japan’s interactions with East Asian economies from the 1970s to the 1990s. The report concludes that China’s role in Latin America will need to adapt and evolve if it is going to have a lasting, positive impact.
“There is little evidence that China can play a role in fostering productivity growth for Latin America and the Caribbean,” according to the World Bank’s Chief Economist for the region, Augusto de la Torre. “In this new context of lackluster economic performance in the U.S. and Europe, one key question is whether LAC can leverage its deepening connections with China and turn it into an important source of long-term growth.”
The golden years of the East Asian Tigers were characterized by large flows of intra-industry trade and foreign direct investment from Japan, with significant distribution of technology and knowledge more broadly. The first decade of China relations with Latin America have lacked much of that promising exchange.
China has become the principal trading partner for some large LAC countries. Trade between China and these nations, has revolved around the exchange of the region’s abundant natural resources for low-tech goods from China that are labor-intensive to produce. This type of trade typically limits the potential gains from technology and knowledge sharing.
That is not to say that there have been no gains from the commodity boom in the region, the report emphasizes. Some bright spots show that certain commodity sectors in LAC are benefiting from technological innovation and generating local, quality employment. Extensive networks of local businesses in Peru and Chile, for instance, are benefiting from their ties to mining extraction and salmon farming, respectively, while agricultural producing countries in the Southern Cone have showed new technology deployment and productivity gains.
Until these favourable conditions become more widespread, however, it is difficult to expect that the region will finally begin narrowing the gap with advanced nations. LAC’s growth performance over the 20th century was rather dismal – with per capita income remaining largely steady at 30 percent of the U.S. In contrast, East Asian countries saw their per capita income, which was only about 15 percent that of the U.S. in the 1960s, rise sharply and steadily to reach more than 70 percent of the U.S. by 2010.
The very fact that the region is confronted at this stage with inflationary pressures arising from strong economic activity is a clear reminder that the region tends to bump against “structural speed limits” at comparatively low growth rates.
While the high-performing economies of emerging Asia can sustain annual growth rates in the 6-9 percent range without inflationary consequences, in most of LAC the non-inflationary growth rates that can be sustained over long periods hover below 5 percent.
Some of the factors that help explain these differences in growth potential include:
-- LAC’s road density has declined 15 percent since the 1980s, while it has expanded 30 percent in the Asian countries.
-- LAC’s electricity installed capacity was about 17 percent below that of the Tigers in the 1980s. Now it is almost 50 percent below.
-- LAC’s percentage of population with tertiary education has risen from 9.5 percent in 1990 to 14.2 percent in 2009, but it pales relative to the Tigers, which has gone from 10 to 20 percent in the same period.
On the other hand, De la Torre explains “LAC has developed vibrant democratic systems that in the long term can contribute to ensure that progress in these key areas is sustainable.”
In addition, some of the key external conditions to raise LAC’s growth rate sustainably above the world’s average are in place: large and growing countries with strong demand for LAC exports; high commodity prices; and low world interest rates. Seizing the opportunity on this favorable environment will require a well-designed and adequate policy mix that maintains macro-financial stability while fostering productivity, the report concludes.
September 21, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
"Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette's admission over his family interest in a company awarded a Bahamas government contract is a 'constitutional crisis" ... What a lot of political hogwash!
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
"DEPUTY PM's admission over contract is a 'constitutional crisis'" reads the headline on page 7 of today's edition. The article claims that the Bahamas is now constitutionally compromised because Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette has admitted -- as though it were ever a secret -- that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract.
What a lot of political hogwash! It's now election time -- silly season-- and the Opposition is trying to either knock out or neutralise as many politically strong opponents as it can - the most important of which, of course, is the team of Ingraham and Symonette.
According to Mr Symonette this is an "election attack" by the PLP. We agree.
We understand that a survey of sorts was taken to discover whether the team of Christie and "Mother" Pratt could beat Ingraham and Symonette. The finding was that it could not. It is believed that neither can Christie and "Brave" Davis. Ipso facto, government's lead team has to be broken up. The chisel has now been put to the base of Mr Symonette, and chipping away has started.
We find it highly amusing who is among those leading the charge against Mr Symonette on a matter of conflict of interest, integrity and ethics. There is no space to go into details here, but those who want to understand our sarcastic amusement should read from pages 103 to 109 of the Commission of Inquiry Report (Volume I) December, 1984 into "the illegal use of the Bahamas for the transshipment of dangerous drugs destined for the United States of America."
It is claimed that Mr Symonette's admission of a conflict has not only doomed him, but should remove him from the seat of government.
The admission to which George Smith, former Exuma MP and minister in the Pindling cabinet, and Loftus Roker, also a former cabinet minister from the Pindling era, refers is announced as though it were a new revelation. It is not. The public -- ever since Mr Symonette's resignation as chairman of the airport board in 2001- has had full knowledge of the fact that although Mr Symonette personally owns no shares in the company in question --Bahamas Hot Mix Co., Ltd - his children's trust does.
As a matter of fact Mr Symonette, a highly successful businessman, owns shares in many companies. Are all of these companies to be denied a right to bid on government contracts, because some member of Mr Symonette's family might own shares? How many Bahamian jobs are being jeopardised by such a policy? We agree that when such matters come before Cabinet, Mr Symonette should step aside to remove any suggestion that his presence has influenced a vote. But we do not agree that he should be removed as deputy prime minister just because certain politicians want to entertain sinister thoughts.
Bahamians must remember that this is a small country. Our problem is that we have too many lawyers and not enough successful businessmen in the House. And although on every declaration that he has to make -- and which is public -- Mr Symonette lists all of his interests in the various companies, his success is used against him. No wonder persons, who really have something to offer this country and who should be serving in parliament, refuse to volunteer.
If we had more MPs with the business acumen and the means to do for their constituencies what Mr Symonette does for St Anne's, this little Bahamas would be a better place.
But many Bahamians with much to offer are discouraged when they see the mean-spirited behaviour of petty politicians, particularly against successful persons like Brent Symonette. No wonder they want nothing to do with politics. To them it is a dirty game, best to be shunned.
The company that the PLP are now railing against is Bahamas Hot Mix, founded in 1984 by a group of Bahamian businessmen with construction backgrounds.
It is one of only two hot mix plants -- with the exception of government -- in the Bahamas.
It is the only business of its type with international accreditation.
It has about 255 well paid Bahamian employees -- all earning about $35,000 a year -- who between 7pm and 5am nightly, when most Bahamians are asleep, are now out repairing sewer pipes on Bay Street to make ready for the road improvement programme for downtown.
Were these Bahamians, who also have families to feed, to be denied this government job, just because Mr Symonette's children's trust hold minority shares in their company?
And was the Treasury to forego a savings of about $200,000 on this contract because Mr Symonette is being judged by the low standards of others?
We think not. We shall return to this subject tomorrow.
September 19, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
"DEPUTY PM's admission over contract is a 'constitutional crisis'" reads the headline on page 7 of today's edition. The article claims that the Bahamas is now constitutionally compromised because Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette has admitted -- as though it were ever a secret -- that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract.
What a lot of political hogwash! It's now election time -- silly season-- and the Opposition is trying to either knock out or neutralise as many politically strong opponents as it can - the most important of which, of course, is the team of Ingraham and Symonette.
According to Mr Symonette this is an "election attack" by the PLP. We agree.
We understand that a survey of sorts was taken to discover whether the team of Christie and "Mother" Pratt could beat Ingraham and Symonette. The finding was that it could not. It is believed that neither can Christie and "Brave" Davis. Ipso facto, government's lead team has to be broken up. The chisel has now been put to the base of Mr Symonette, and chipping away has started.
We find it highly amusing who is among those leading the charge against Mr Symonette on a matter of conflict of interest, integrity and ethics. There is no space to go into details here, but those who want to understand our sarcastic amusement should read from pages 103 to 109 of the Commission of Inquiry Report (Volume I) December, 1984 into "the illegal use of the Bahamas for the transshipment of dangerous drugs destined for the United States of America."
It is claimed that Mr Symonette's admission of a conflict has not only doomed him, but should remove him from the seat of government.
The admission to which George Smith, former Exuma MP and minister in the Pindling cabinet, and Loftus Roker, also a former cabinet minister from the Pindling era, refers is announced as though it were a new revelation. It is not. The public -- ever since Mr Symonette's resignation as chairman of the airport board in 2001- has had full knowledge of the fact that although Mr Symonette personally owns no shares in the company in question --Bahamas Hot Mix Co., Ltd - his children's trust does.
As a matter of fact Mr Symonette, a highly successful businessman, owns shares in many companies. Are all of these companies to be denied a right to bid on government contracts, because some member of Mr Symonette's family might own shares? How many Bahamian jobs are being jeopardised by such a policy? We agree that when such matters come before Cabinet, Mr Symonette should step aside to remove any suggestion that his presence has influenced a vote. But we do not agree that he should be removed as deputy prime minister just because certain politicians want to entertain sinister thoughts.
Bahamians must remember that this is a small country. Our problem is that we have too many lawyers and not enough successful businessmen in the House. And although on every declaration that he has to make -- and which is public -- Mr Symonette lists all of his interests in the various companies, his success is used against him. No wonder persons, who really have something to offer this country and who should be serving in parliament, refuse to volunteer.
If we had more MPs with the business acumen and the means to do for their constituencies what Mr Symonette does for St Anne's, this little Bahamas would be a better place.
But many Bahamians with much to offer are discouraged when they see the mean-spirited behaviour of petty politicians, particularly against successful persons like Brent Symonette. No wonder they want nothing to do with politics. To them it is a dirty game, best to be shunned.
The company that the PLP are now railing against is Bahamas Hot Mix, founded in 1984 by a group of Bahamian businessmen with construction backgrounds.
It is one of only two hot mix plants -- with the exception of government -- in the Bahamas.
It is the only business of its type with international accreditation.
It has about 255 well paid Bahamian employees -- all earning about $35,000 a year -- who between 7pm and 5am nightly, when most Bahamians are asleep, are now out repairing sewer pipes on Bay Street to make ready for the road improvement programme for downtown.
Were these Bahamians, who also have families to feed, to be denied this government job, just because Mr Symonette's children's trust hold minority shares in their company?
And was the Treasury to forego a savings of about $200,000 on this contract because Mr Symonette is being judged by the low standards of others?
We think not. We shall return to this subject tomorrow.
September 19, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Bahamas is in a "constitutional crisis" due to the admission by Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette that his family has an interest in a company awarded a Bahamas government contract... claims former Bahamian Cabinet minister and Exuma MP George Smith
Deputy PM's admission over contract 'a constitutional crisis'
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE admission by Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract has placed the country in a "constitutional crisis", claims former Cabinet minister and Exuma MP George Smith.
Mr Smith said that according to article 49 of the constitution, a member of the House of Assembly must resign his seat if he becomes interested in a government contract.
He said an exception can only be made if the MP did not know he had become interested in such a contract, or if he formally disclosed the interest to the House and asks Parliament for an exemption.
This should take place "while he is still only interested in such a contract, and before it is actually entered into," according to Mr Smith.
"That is enshrined in the constitution, our most sacred document."
Mr Smith's comments echo those of another former PLP Cabinet minister, Loftus Roker, who said the deputy prime minister should resign or be fired for the appearance of a conflict of interest. The row comes after comments Mr Symonette made about his family's interest in Bahamas Hot Mix, the company awarded the contract to pave roads under the New Providence Road Improvement Project.
Road works
Mr Roker, a former minister of Immigration in Pindling administration, said: "I believe Mr Symonette, (the) deputy prime minister who is one heartbeat away from leader of this country, is in conflict of interest insofar as these road works are concerned.
"As a minister he is restricted in the jobs he can have in this country. He is not like anyone else and he chose to be a minister, nobody put a gun to his head to make him a minister.
"Mr Symonette should resign as minister before (Prime Minister) Hubert Ingraham is forced to fire him because on his own words, in my view, he is in conflict of interest".
In response, Mr Symonette said the call for his resignation was an "election attack" by the PLP.
"The PLP operatives have decided to target me. Don't come with this foolishness just because election time is coming. The PLP operatives are obviously starting their attack on me because they're scared they have nothing else to hang their election hat on and come back to same old tactics they had years ago, he said.
Last week he explained his connection to Bahamas Hot Mix and said his family's interest in the company has been public knowledge for years.
"I do not own any share in that company. The shares are owned by my children's trust, but that is public knowledge. I have investments in many companies in this country. Does that mean that I should not enter politics? I don't think so," Mr Symonette said.
"Bahamas Hot Mix got the contract, not because of me but because they are recognised and well-known road builders in the Bahamas. They are qualified to get the job. If there is a bidding process should they not bid? I am a Bahamian and I am entitled to jobs in the Bahamas just like everyone else."
Shareholder
He added: "Yes, I happen to be a shareholder but I am a shareholder in many companies. So because I have personal wealth does that mean I cannot be a Member of Parliament? Why is he attacking me? There were ministers under the PLP government who got contracts that could be called 'special interest' but no one made a big deal about that."
Mr Symonette has also publicly said his family's connection to the company is not a conflict of interest.
September 19, 2011
tribune242
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE admission by Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract has placed the country in a "constitutional crisis", claims former Cabinet minister and Exuma MP George Smith.
Mr Smith said that according to article 49 of the constitution, a member of the House of Assembly must resign his seat if he becomes interested in a government contract.
He said an exception can only be made if the MP did not know he had become interested in such a contract, or if he formally disclosed the interest to the House and asks Parliament for an exemption.
This should take place "while he is still only interested in such a contract, and before it is actually entered into," according to Mr Smith.
"That is enshrined in the constitution, our most sacred document."
Mr Smith's comments echo those of another former PLP Cabinet minister, Loftus Roker, who said the deputy prime minister should resign or be fired for the appearance of a conflict of interest. The row comes after comments Mr Symonette made about his family's interest in Bahamas Hot Mix, the company awarded the contract to pave roads under the New Providence Road Improvement Project.
Road works
Mr Roker, a former minister of Immigration in Pindling administration, said: "I believe Mr Symonette, (the) deputy prime minister who is one heartbeat away from leader of this country, is in conflict of interest insofar as these road works are concerned.
"As a minister he is restricted in the jobs he can have in this country. He is not like anyone else and he chose to be a minister, nobody put a gun to his head to make him a minister.
"Mr Symonette should resign as minister before (Prime Minister) Hubert Ingraham is forced to fire him because on his own words, in my view, he is in conflict of interest".
In response, Mr Symonette said the call for his resignation was an "election attack" by the PLP.
"The PLP operatives have decided to target me. Don't come with this foolishness just because election time is coming. The PLP operatives are obviously starting their attack on me because they're scared they have nothing else to hang their election hat on and come back to same old tactics they had years ago, he said.
Last week he explained his connection to Bahamas Hot Mix and said his family's interest in the company has been public knowledge for years.
"I do not own any share in that company. The shares are owned by my children's trust, but that is public knowledge. I have investments in many companies in this country. Does that mean that I should not enter politics? I don't think so," Mr Symonette said.
"Bahamas Hot Mix got the contract, not because of me but because they are recognised and well-known road builders in the Bahamas. They are qualified to get the job. If there is a bidding process should they not bid? I am a Bahamian and I am entitled to jobs in the Bahamas just like everyone else."
Shareholder
He added: "Yes, I happen to be a shareholder but I am a shareholder in many companies. So because I have personal wealth does that mean I cannot be a Member of Parliament? Why is he attacking me? There were ministers under the PLP government who got contracts that could be called 'special interest' but no one made a big deal about that."
Mr Symonette has also publicly said his family's connection to the company is not a conflict of interest.
September 19, 2011
tribune242
Sunday, September 18, 2011
In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning
Bahamian Agriculture, an overview. Agriculture series, part 1
By JOHN HEDDEN
jondgaul@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
RECENTLY, much has appeared in the media about agriculture, with senior politicians, pundits, veterinary intellectuals and the regular armchair philosophers making their comments and putting forward opinions.
However, I have seen no comment from the actual farming community about the status and future of farming. This may shroud the real issues involved, and so confuse the general public with rhetoric and other fancy words.
Before the reality becomes smothered I feel that as a genuine 'paper farmer' I can probably help cloud the issue even further.
In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning.
This first part deals with historical anecdotes and notes which cover geographical, topographical and climate issues, and basic soils and water availability. I have not included dates because these instantly put off any student of history.
However a journey into the well documented archives of our country will verify many of my statements.
In the beginning was the Lucayan, the Arawak, the Taino, peoples who should go down in history as the true Bahamians, and the only people who have sustainably harvested their food from the environment throughout this archipelago.
Unfortunately these people did not survive to modern times.
Since the arrival of the Europeans, and to the present day, no people in the Bahamas have truly subsisted on the products of the native environment.
Subsistence production during the many very lean years after settlement, relied on non-native species for the major food sources.
These introduced species include cassava, sweet potato, yams, pigeon peas, red beans, sheep, goats, and all poultry. Even the wild hogs of many islands were introduced as domestic breeds before going feral.
The early settlers on several occasions had to appeal to their colleagues on the US mainland for help with staple supplies to prevent starvation on many of the inhabited islands.
The purchase of the Bahamas by the proprietors, and the establishment of plantations on many of the more southerly islands, became short lived, because the thin dry, arid soils were unable to supply sustainable commercial harvests.
In most cases these plantations were abandoned to the slaves and servants to eke out a kind of subsistence involving the sea, and slash and burn methods of coppice (black land) and sandy (white land) cultivation.
To many of the islanders, the Nassau capital may as well have been in Lima, Peru, because communications and transport were non-existent.
The northern pine islands were not exploited to any degree agriculturally, mainly because the pine land was inaccessible, and the 'cap rock' was unworkable with traditional hand tools and manual labour methods. The pine areas were thus appropriately named "The Barrens", even though fresh water was close at hand.
Even the arrival of the Loyalists with their plantation approach resulted in a common survival in which the whites were no better off than their black brothers. All struggled to survive.
The Bahamas went through many years of the most basic provision for sustenance in order to stave off debilitating hunger, and the early church missions often rescued locals from imminent starvation.
Up until the 19th century, church and religious annals take account of the destitution and malnourishment existing in much of the settled Out Islands.
Less than 100 years ago, arrangements were made by the Colonial Service to accommodate workers through contracts in North America. All types of Bahamians took advantage in order to survive the depression and the Second World War.
Many of these migrant workers earned the name "American Boy" after returning with adopted American mannerisms.
Even today there is no continuity of agricultural production over the traditional "lifetimes of farming" experienced in other parts of the world such as Africa and Europe.
There was however a brief spell in our history when agriculture seemed destined to become a major contributor to the economy.
During the early to late 1800s, pineapple and citrus production became a major source of foreign revenue for the islands.
Farming in Eleuthera, Cat island, and southern Abaco became very prominent; as it did in the eastern part of New Providence.
Produce exported to North America and England made significant contributions to the islands' welfare.
However, the rise of Hawaiian pineapple and Florida citrus plantings soon put paid to that flourishing industry. A one cent tax was levied on each imported fruit, thus protecting the US producers.
After the end of the Second World War, the English government introduced the Colonial Development Corporation to various islands in order to foster growth through agricultural entrepreneurship.
The pineapple project on the best land in south Eleuthera failed because mechanisation removed the red soils and introduced raw limestone.
This area would later claim fame as the 'Charolais Ranch' that provided the US with it's prized French cattle breeding stock.
The Andros project failed because the fruit and vegetable land selected behind fresh Creek was a summer swamp when the rains came, and no number of pumps could keep the growing area dry.
It is ironical that here the water was pumped away from the crops, and not to them. Rice would not even grow in the perimeter canals and drainage ditches.
In addition, produce shipped out from Andros by barge did not even survive the journey to Nassau.
Over the years, attempts have been made to introduce sugar cane, large citrus groves, dairy, egg and poultry production to a non-existent agricultural sector.
Some survived for a number of years but mainly because protection against competition was the rule of the day.
In the modern era with the advent of Bahamian accession to the WTO and the apparent barring of protectionism in any form, bleak prospects for agricultural enterprise are looming on the Bahamian horizon.
Many feel disillusioned and upset over the lack of governmental input in order to save the tradition of farming in the country.
The reality is that apart from subsistence production purely for survival, the Bahamian agricultural sector is a myth and a non-contributor to any recognisable part of the economy.
In fact, since majority rule Bahamians have been actively encouraged to move away from agricultural and menial work into tourism and financial services. Today the perception is that agriculture is demeaning and subservient work, close to being on welfare.
The introduction of more modern technology has recently accounted for some apparently successful start ups, and renovated enterprises in Andros.
The use of more modern techniques, even basic ones like efficient irrigation, can dramatically improve yields.
Management of soil fertility and pest control are equally important. These issues will be dealt with in the following article.
September 17, 2011
tribune242
By JOHN HEDDEN
jondgaul@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
RECENTLY, much has appeared in the media about agriculture, with senior politicians, pundits, veterinary intellectuals and the regular armchair philosophers making their comments and putting forward opinions.
However, I have seen no comment from the actual farming community about the status and future of farming. This may shroud the real issues involved, and so confuse the general public with rhetoric and other fancy words.
Before the reality becomes smothered I feel that as a genuine 'paper farmer' I can probably help cloud the issue even further.
In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning.
This first part deals with historical anecdotes and notes which cover geographical, topographical and climate issues, and basic soils and water availability. I have not included dates because these instantly put off any student of history.
However a journey into the well documented archives of our country will verify many of my statements.
In the beginning was the Lucayan, the Arawak, the Taino, peoples who should go down in history as the true Bahamians, and the only people who have sustainably harvested their food from the environment throughout this archipelago.
Unfortunately these people did not survive to modern times.
Since the arrival of the Europeans, and to the present day, no people in the Bahamas have truly subsisted on the products of the native environment.
Subsistence production during the many very lean years after settlement, relied on non-native species for the major food sources.
These introduced species include cassava, sweet potato, yams, pigeon peas, red beans, sheep, goats, and all poultry. Even the wild hogs of many islands were introduced as domestic breeds before going feral.
The early settlers on several occasions had to appeal to their colleagues on the US mainland for help with staple supplies to prevent starvation on many of the inhabited islands.
The purchase of the Bahamas by the proprietors, and the establishment of plantations on many of the more southerly islands, became short lived, because the thin dry, arid soils were unable to supply sustainable commercial harvests.
In most cases these plantations were abandoned to the slaves and servants to eke out a kind of subsistence involving the sea, and slash and burn methods of coppice (black land) and sandy (white land) cultivation.
To many of the islanders, the Nassau capital may as well have been in Lima, Peru, because communications and transport were non-existent.
The northern pine islands were not exploited to any degree agriculturally, mainly because the pine land was inaccessible, and the 'cap rock' was unworkable with traditional hand tools and manual labour methods. The pine areas were thus appropriately named "The Barrens", even though fresh water was close at hand.
Even the arrival of the Loyalists with their plantation approach resulted in a common survival in which the whites were no better off than their black brothers. All struggled to survive.
The Bahamas went through many years of the most basic provision for sustenance in order to stave off debilitating hunger, and the early church missions often rescued locals from imminent starvation.
Up until the 19th century, church and religious annals take account of the destitution and malnourishment existing in much of the settled Out Islands.
Less than 100 years ago, arrangements were made by the Colonial Service to accommodate workers through contracts in North America. All types of Bahamians took advantage in order to survive the depression and the Second World War.
Many of these migrant workers earned the name "American Boy" after returning with adopted American mannerisms.
Even today there is no continuity of agricultural production over the traditional "lifetimes of farming" experienced in other parts of the world such as Africa and Europe.
There was however a brief spell in our history when agriculture seemed destined to become a major contributor to the economy.
During the early to late 1800s, pineapple and citrus production became a major source of foreign revenue for the islands.
Farming in Eleuthera, Cat island, and southern Abaco became very prominent; as it did in the eastern part of New Providence.
Produce exported to North America and England made significant contributions to the islands' welfare.
However, the rise of Hawaiian pineapple and Florida citrus plantings soon put paid to that flourishing industry. A one cent tax was levied on each imported fruit, thus protecting the US producers.
After the end of the Second World War, the English government introduced the Colonial Development Corporation to various islands in order to foster growth through agricultural entrepreneurship.
The pineapple project on the best land in south Eleuthera failed because mechanisation removed the red soils and introduced raw limestone.
This area would later claim fame as the 'Charolais Ranch' that provided the US with it's prized French cattle breeding stock.
The Andros project failed because the fruit and vegetable land selected behind fresh Creek was a summer swamp when the rains came, and no number of pumps could keep the growing area dry.
It is ironical that here the water was pumped away from the crops, and not to them. Rice would not even grow in the perimeter canals and drainage ditches.
In addition, produce shipped out from Andros by barge did not even survive the journey to Nassau.
Over the years, attempts have been made to introduce sugar cane, large citrus groves, dairy, egg and poultry production to a non-existent agricultural sector.
Some survived for a number of years but mainly because protection against competition was the rule of the day.
In the modern era with the advent of Bahamian accession to the WTO and the apparent barring of protectionism in any form, bleak prospects for agricultural enterprise are looming on the Bahamian horizon.
Many feel disillusioned and upset over the lack of governmental input in order to save the tradition of farming in the country.
The reality is that apart from subsistence production purely for survival, the Bahamian agricultural sector is a myth and a non-contributor to any recognisable part of the economy.
In fact, since majority rule Bahamians have been actively encouraged to move away from agricultural and menial work into tourism and financial services. Today the perception is that agriculture is demeaning and subservient work, close to being on welfare.
The introduction of more modern technology has recently accounted for some apparently successful start ups, and renovated enterprises in Andros.
The use of more modern techniques, even basic ones like efficient irrigation, can dramatically improve yields.
Management of soil fertility and pest control are equally important. These issues will be dealt with in the following article.
September 17, 2011
tribune242
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Belize celebrates 30 years of independence but major challenges still lie ahead
By Wellington C. Ramos
This September 21, 2011, will make 30 years since Belize became independent from Great Britain but Belize still has major challenges ahead that it is grappling with, such as crime, gangs, political victimization, drugs, poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, lots, land, nationalism, dual citizenship rights and the Guatemalan dispute.
All these issues continue to plague Belize and make it difficult for our country to develop rapidly. Belizeans are not as nationalistic as the Jamaicans are to their country. One of the reasons for this is because Guatemala is still claiming Belize and some Belizeans think that this claim will remain an everlasting dispute until we give Guatemala some land.
Another reason is that there are many Belizeans who are trying to obtain a lot or piece of land and haven’t gotten any, despite all the efforts they have made to obtain them. Yet, they are witnessing foreigners coming into their country taking, squatting and purchasing lands to live and do farming. People identify themselves with land and when they have it, they will be more than willing to put their lives on the line for it.
Our government should now begin the process to make sure that every natural born Belizean be given a piece of land so that he can live with his or her family and grow food to support them. This will also increase Belizean nationalism because they will have something tangible to attach themselves to.
I left Belize to come and live in the United States thirty-three years ago. When I first arrived in New York City, there was a group called the “Freedom Committee” that was being chaired by Mr Compton Fairweather. This group held weekly Sunday meetings at the basement of a Methodist Church on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn. Alongside of him were his officers: Muriel Laing, Walford Young, Derrick Staine , Leotin Staine-Lewis, Mary Stuart-Flowers, Mr Trapp and several others. The room was packed with mostly elderly people.
These officers would give speeches about their lives when they were living in Belize and how beautiful Belize is. The main purpose of this group was to make sure that Belize remains a free country with all its territory intact. At the end of the meeting, I would go around and engage in discussions with some of the people in the audience and, to my surprise, many of these people were not prepared to go home and some of them had no intentions of returning to Belize and live.
In addition to this organization, there was a “Telephone Belize News” where Belizeans could call every Tuesday at midnight to get updated news, entertainment events and death announcements. Belizeans from all over the country looked forward to this day to make their telephone calls. After years of service to the community, Mr Fairweather retired and went home to Belize to live. The association and the Belize News no longer exist and Belizeans are still talking about the news but have not done anything to replace or upgrade it.
Prior to the independence of Belize, the two main political parties in Belize held different positions. The United Democratic Party wanted independence with a defenbe guarantee from Great Britain. The People’s United Party wanted independence with or without the guarantee and felt that, with world opinion on their side, Belize will survive.
The prime minister of Great Britain at the time, Margaret Thatcher, wanted to get rid of most of Britain’s overseas territories. She felt that the countries created a huge financial burden to the British government and its people.
The Belize prime minister at the time, the Honorable George Cadle Price, was told by the British that Britain will leave their troops in Belize for an indefinite period of time. A couple years after, the British government started to withdraw their forces out of Belize and the Guatemalans started to reclaim Belize up to this day.
Today, Belizeans are living with this constant threat from Guatemalans, who cross the border at will and come into Belizean territory and occupy lands to establish new villages. In addition, they trespass on Belizean soil to steal Mayan artifacts and other valuables from the country. The Guatemalan military does nothing to stop their citizens from crossing the border to come into Belize.
The Belize and Guatemalan governments signed an agreement in the year 2008, to make efforts to send their border dispute to the International Court of Justice. In this agreement, both countries pledged to conduct a referendum in their respective countries to ratify the agreement. If any of these two countries fail to ratify it, then the whole process will be stalled.
The Guatemalan congress just recently ratified it, after the Belize government did so months ago. It will be up to these two governments to now bring this agreement to their people for a referendum vote. Both countries will be having elections soon and whether these governments would like to bring this controversial issue to a vote by their people is still left to be seen.
In the meantime, Belizeans will be jumping and parading all over the country this year but when the jumping up and parades are finished, Belize will still be in the same position it was in before it celebrated this year’s independence.
Belizean nationalism can only come through implementing an ongoing nationalism program to educate our children and people. First, they must be proud to be Belizeans and have reasons to state why being a Belizean is a lot better than being anything else.
For me, I am proud to be a Belizean because this is the country of my birth. The American government can always take away the citizenship they gave to me but the Belize government cannot. In fact, I dare any Belizean to try and take away my citizenship rights and privileges.
Belizeans living in the Diaspora should start thinking positive about Belize especially with what they are experiencing living in America today. If they do not want to have anything to do with Belize, it might be a decision they will regret later on in their lives.
I have placed my life on the line for Belize when I served in the Belize Police Force and have served in the American armed forces to prepare myself to defend my country if it is invaded by Guatemala or any other country on earth. While victory against the enemy might seem impossible, I would not be able to carry on with my life if I stood there and did nothing to be invaded by another country.
A true citizen is one who is willing to pick up arms and shed his or her blood in defence of his country. If we can get more Belizeans to think like this, our country would find a way to solve this dilemma.
This year we heard from three of our country’s prime ministers and they touched on the poverty in Belize but failed to mention that the African Belizeans, Garifuna and Creoles make up the majority of the poor and those who are leaving Belize to come to the United States.
When the Garifuna people were engaged in farming and fishing back in the old days, their poverty rate was low. Giving the citizens land to grow their own food will eliminate poverty in Belize and this is the time to implement such a desperately needed program for our idle black youths in Belize’s cities and towns.
September 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
This September 21, 2011, will make 30 years since Belize became independent from Great Britain but Belize still has major challenges ahead that it is grappling with, such as crime, gangs, political victimization, drugs, poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, lots, land, nationalism, dual citizenship rights and the Guatemalan dispute.
All these issues continue to plague Belize and make it difficult for our country to develop rapidly. Belizeans are not as nationalistic as the Jamaicans are to their country. One of the reasons for this is because Guatemala is still claiming Belize and some Belizeans think that this claim will remain an everlasting dispute until we give Guatemala some land. Another reason is that there are many Belizeans who are trying to obtain a lot or piece of land and haven’t gotten any, despite all the efforts they have made to obtain them. Yet, they are witnessing foreigners coming into their country taking, squatting and purchasing lands to live and do farming. People identify themselves with land and when they have it, they will be more than willing to put their lives on the line for it.
Our government should now begin the process to make sure that every natural born Belizean be given a piece of land so that he can live with his or her family and grow food to support them. This will also increase Belizean nationalism because they will have something tangible to attach themselves to.
I left Belize to come and live in the United States thirty-three years ago. When I first arrived in New York City, there was a group called the “Freedom Committee” that was being chaired by Mr Compton Fairweather. This group held weekly Sunday meetings at the basement of a Methodist Church on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn. Alongside of him were his officers: Muriel Laing, Walford Young, Derrick Staine , Leotin Staine-Lewis, Mary Stuart-Flowers, Mr Trapp and several others. The room was packed with mostly elderly people.
These officers would give speeches about their lives when they were living in Belize and how beautiful Belize is. The main purpose of this group was to make sure that Belize remains a free country with all its territory intact. At the end of the meeting, I would go around and engage in discussions with some of the people in the audience and, to my surprise, many of these people were not prepared to go home and some of them had no intentions of returning to Belize and live.
In addition to this organization, there was a “Telephone Belize News” where Belizeans could call every Tuesday at midnight to get updated news, entertainment events and death announcements. Belizeans from all over the country looked forward to this day to make their telephone calls. After years of service to the community, Mr Fairweather retired and went home to Belize to live. The association and the Belize News no longer exist and Belizeans are still talking about the news but have not done anything to replace or upgrade it.
Prior to the independence of Belize, the two main political parties in Belize held different positions. The United Democratic Party wanted independence with a defenbe guarantee from Great Britain. The People’s United Party wanted independence with or without the guarantee and felt that, with world opinion on their side, Belize will survive.
The prime minister of Great Britain at the time, Margaret Thatcher, wanted to get rid of most of Britain’s overseas territories. She felt that the countries created a huge financial burden to the British government and its people.
The Belize prime minister at the time, the Honorable George Cadle Price, was told by the British that Britain will leave their troops in Belize for an indefinite period of time. A couple years after, the British government started to withdraw their forces out of Belize and the Guatemalans started to reclaim Belize up to this day.
Today, Belizeans are living with this constant threat from Guatemalans, who cross the border at will and come into Belizean territory and occupy lands to establish new villages. In addition, they trespass on Belizean soil to steal Mayan artifacts and other valuables from the country. The Guatemalan military does nothing to stop their citizens from crossing the border to come into Belize.
The Belize and Guatemalan governments signed an agreement in the year 2008, to make efforts to send their border dispute to the International Court of Justice. In this agreement, both countries pledged to conduct a referendum in their respective countries to ratify the agreement. If any of these two countries fail to ratify it, then the whole process will be stalled.
The Guatemalan congress just recently ratified it, after the Belize government did so months ago. It will be up to these two governments to now bring this agreement to their people for a referendum vote. Both countries will be having elections soon and whether these governments would like to bring this controversial issue to a vote by their people is still left to be seen.
In the meantime, Belizeans will be jumping and parading all over the country this year but when the jumping up and parades are finished, Belize will still be in the same position it was in before it celebrated this year’s independence.
Belizean nationalism can only come through implementing an ongoing nationalism program to educate our children and people. First, they must be proud to be Belizeans and have reasons to state why being a Belizean is a lot better than being anything else.
For me, I am proud to be a Belizean because this is the country of my birth. The American government can always take away the citizenship they gave to me but the Belize government cannot. In fact, I dare any Belizean to try and take away my citizenship rights and privileges.
Belizeans living in the Diaspora should start thinking positive about Belize especially with what they are experiencing living in America today. If they do not want to have anything to do with Belize, it might be a decision they will regret later on in their lives.
I have placed my life on the line for Belize when I served in the Belize Police Force and have served in the American armed forces to prepare myself to defend my country if it is invaded by Guatemala or any other country on earth. While victory against the enemy might seem impossible, I would not be able to carry on with my life if I stood there and did nothing to be invaded by another country.
A true citizen is one who is willing to pick up arms and shed his or her blood in defence of his country. If we can get more Belizeans to think like this, our country would find a way to solve this dilemma.
This year we heard from three of our country’s prime ministers and they touched on the poverty in Belize but failed to mention that the African Belizeans, Garifuna and Creoles make up the majority of the poor and those who are leaving Belize to come to the United States.
When the Garifuna people were engaged in farming and fishing back in the old days, their poverty rate was low. Giving the citizens land to grow their own food will eliminate poverty in Belize and this is the time to implement such a desperately needed program for our idle black youths in Belize’s cities and towns.
September 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thoughts on Jamaica's 50th anniversary
By FRANKLIN W KNIGHT
The approach of the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence provides an appropriate time to review and perhaps revise the way Jamaica is governed. Thinking about the structure of government does not require the approach of a significant year, but anniversaries are always an opportune moment for assessment. How has the country done in the past 50 years since it took control of its own affairs? What institutions are not working at all? What is working well? What could be made better?
One place to start is with the constitution hastily written in 1961 to respond to the self-made emergency following the unexpected collapse of the West Indian Federation that was carefully designed to shepherd a number of Caribbean units into an awkward form of independence. But the principal goal of the federation was to relieve Great Britain of the administrative costs of empire. British Caribbean independence was not designed to secure the future happiness and well-being of the citizens of the Caribbean. To guarantee their goal, the British promised that any territory that felt it could make it on its own was free to do so. With the premature collapse of the federation, Jamaica, along with Trinidad and Tobago, opted for independence and needed constitutions to legalise the process.
In 1776 the British North American colonies initiated the idea of a written constitution as a prelude to political independence. It was a rationale for change that tried to do two things. The first was to synthesise some core values and guiding principles of just government. The second was to lay out the guidelines for structuring and regulating the good society. Since then every group of citizens wishing to construct a modern state has outlined its history, culture, hopes and expectations in a form of written constitution. That is what Jamaica did in 1961.
The Jamaica constitution quite properly tried to capture what it felt were the basic values and principles of the country at the time. In that it did a good job. It recognised that Jamaica was a demographically diverse country with roots in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It had a culture that was an eclectic and creolised blend of the various peoples who made the island their home over centuries or who had recently arrived. Jamaican culture was not like a pizza with a choice of exotic toppings. Rather, it was like a delicately constructed cake with discernible ingredients all delightfully melded together. That conviction is reflected in the island's motto, "Out of many One people" as well as in the symbolic colours of the national flag. That intrinsic diversity is still exalted as a desirable virtue.
Jamaicans also hold a deep respect for popular democracy, deriving from its curious history. Jamaica was not always a democracy. Indeed, the original British representative legislature was neither representative nor democratic. But neither was the British Parliament before the Great Reform Act of 1832. Fortunately for Jamaica, the English residents who structured the government of the colony after its capture from the Spanish in 1655 were not the viable critical mass needed to develop and retain the sort of bourgeois proclivities of the white property holders in British North America. The Jamaican legislature accepted free non-whites and Jews as bona fide members as long as they met the eligibility requirements. They were not happy with the result but they had no choice.
Then in 1865 the Jamaica Assembly did a remarkable thing. Rather than expand its representation it abolished itself. That was a lesson in self-preservation that was not lost on the masses. Political control, it learned, was the most important instrument in ensuring social cohesion and common justice. By the time that Jamaica began universal adult suffrage in 1944 a popular democracy was being practised widely by hundreds of organisations across the island. Teachers, small farmers, dockworkers and various other groups of workers formed mutual aid associations hoping to improve their common condition.
Jamaican democracy is founded on the unswerving conviction that the legitimacy of any government rests on the overt approval of the people expressed in free, fair, and open elections. The government is not only responsible to the people; it is also the principal protector of those people. It is benefactor and surrogate parent. This conviction crosses all social and economic divisions and ties the elites to the masses, unlike many other countries where governments are divorced from the people. When governments work well it results in genuine accountability. Governments that fail to meet the expectations of the people are usually rejected at the polls.
The weakness in this apparently sound principle of government resides in the written constitutional form that privileges the two founding political parties, the PNP and the JLP, which have controlled the political process since 1944. As constitutionally structured, especially in a first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the PNP and the JLP do not have a fair chance of winning sufficient representation to form a government. These parties have been monumental failures since 1962. Yet a good constitution should cater to a wider representation of views than just those of the PNP and the JLP.
As Jamaica approaches its 50th anniversary, now is as good a time as any to rethink the constitution. What Jamaica needs is a responsive procedure that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Because democracy is not a perfect form of government - there is no perfect form of democracy - then from time to time it needs to be modified and re-calibrated to serve the majority of the people. Nothing could serve the people of Jamaica better than a major discussion in the next year about the constitutional basis of its government and how it may be improved. As the poet Tennyson wrote: "The old order changes yielding place to new; and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Change is inevitable. Jamaica's present and future depend on periodically reconciling its political institutions to its new realities.
September 14, 2011
jamaicaobserver
The approach of the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence provides an appropriate time to review and perhaps revise the way Jamaica is governed. Thinking about the structure of government does not require the approach of a significant year, but anniversaries are always an opportune moment for assessment. How has the country done in the past 50 years since it took control of its own affairs? What institutions are not working at all? What is working well? What could be made better?
One place to start is with the constitution hastily written in 1961 to respond to the self-made emergency following the unexpected collapse of the West Indian Federation that was carefully designed to shepherd a number of Caribbean units into an awkward form of independence. But the principal goal of the federation was to relieve Great Britain of the administrative costs of empire. British Caribbean independence was not designed to secure the future happiness and well-being of the citizens of the Caribbean. To guarantee their goal, the British promised that any territory that felt it could make it on its own was free to do so. With the premature collapse of the federation, Jamaica, along with Trinidad and Tobago, opted for independence and needed constitutions to legalise the process.
In 1776 the British North American colonies initiated the idea of a written constitution as a prelude to political independence. It was a rationale for change that tried to do two things. The first was to synthesise some core values and guiding principles of just government. The second was to lay out the guidelines for structuring and regulating the good society. Since then every group of citizens wishing to construct a modern state has outlined its history, culture, hopes and expectations in a form of written constitution. That is what Jamaica did in 1961.
The Jamaica constitution quite properly tried to capture what it felt were the basic values and principles of the country at the time. In that it did a good job. It recognised that Jamaica was a demographically diverse country with roots in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It had a culture that was an eclectic and creolised blend of the various peoples who made the island their home over centuries or who had recently arrived. Jamaican culture was not like a pizza with a choice of exotic toppings. Rather, it was like a delicately constructed cake with discernible ingredients all delightfully melded together. That conviction is reflected in the island's motto, "Out of many One people" as well as in the symbolic colours of the national flag. That intrinsic diversity is still exalted as a desirable virtue.
Jamaicans also hold a deep respect for popular democracy, deriving from its curious history. Jamaica was not always a democracy. Indeed, the original British representative legislature was neither representative nor democratic. But neither was the British Parliament before the Great Reform Act of 1832. Fortunately for Jamaica, the English residents who structured the government of the colony after its capture from the Spanish in 1655 were not the viable critical mass needed to develop and retain the sort of bourgeois proclivities of the white property holders in British North America. The Jamaican legislature accepted free non-whites and Jews as bona fide members as long as they met the eligibility requirements. They were not happy with the result but they had no choice.
Then in 1865 the Jamaica Assembly did a remarkable thing. Rather than expand its representation it abolished itself. That was a lesson in self-preservation that was not lost on the masses. Political control, it learned, was the most important instrument in ensuring social cohesion and common justice. By the time that Jamaica began universal adult suffrage in 1944 a popular democracy was being practised widely by hundreds of organisations across the island. Teachers, small farmers, dockworkers and various other groups of workers formed mutual aid associations hoping to improve their common condition.
Jamaican democracy is founded on the unswerving conviction that the legitimacy of any government rests on the overt approval of the people expressed in free, fair, and open elections. The government is not only responsible to the people; it is also the principal protector of those people. It is benefactor and surrogate parent. This conviction crosses all social and economic divisions and ties the elites to the masses, unlike many other countries where governments are divorced from the people. When governments work well it results in genuine accountability. Governments that fail to meet the expectations of the people are usually rejected at the polls.
The weakness in this apparently sound principle of government resides in the written constitutional form that privileges the two founding political parties, the PNP and the JLP, which have controlled the political process since 1944. As constitutionally structured, especially in a first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the PNP and the JLP do not have a fair chance of winning sufficient representation to form a government. These parties have been monumental failures since 1962. Yet a good constitution should cater to a wider representation of views than just those of the PNP and the JLP.
As Jamaica approaches its 50th anniversary, now is as good a time as any to rethink the constitution. What Jamaica needs is a responsive procedure that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Because democracy is not a perfect form of government - there is no perfect form of democracy - then from time to time it needs to be modified and re-calibrated to serve the majority of the people. Nothing could serve the people of Jamaica better than a major discussion in the next year about the constitutional basis of its government and how it may be improved. As the poet Tennyson wrote: "The old order changes yielding place to new; and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Change is inevitable. Jamaica's present and future depend on periodically reconciling its political institutions to its new realities.
September 14, 2011
jamaicaobserver
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)