The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) - A liberating force for 70 years

Jamaica Observer:

The following is an edited version of the address by the former prime minister Edward Seaga on the occasion of the JLP's 70th anniversary function held on July 8, at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel.

TODAY, we gather on the very date, July 8, at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel, which, exactly 70 years ago, in 1943, Alexander Bustamante and a team of like-minded political pioneers founded the Jamaica Labour Party.

The JLP was to have a profound influence on the affairs of Jamaica in the 70 years that followed. It charted the critical direction at many cross-roads in the life of the nation.

When the first rush of political determination raised doubts and anxieties as to whether worthy leaders would emerge in 1944; when the Federal alliance subverted Jamaican goals, and confounded and bewildered the nationalist agenda in the 1950s; when the fledgling nation had to steady itself and find sure feet in the early years of Independence; when socialist experimentation and communist flirtation consumed the national consciousness with fear and plunged the nation into panic in the 1970s, it was the sure-footed, unswerving leadership of the JLP that steadied the country and charted a course of certainty.

Emerging Vision

Unmistakably, the surge of militancy of the 1930s was not to achieve self-government. This was the objective of the nationalists whose mission at the time was more concerned with self-determination and the replacement of colonial government. As such, that was a replacement of colonial bondage in which ideas of brotherhood and equality and ideals of a benevolent godfather state stirred personal commitment and patriotic response.

It was this compelling drive springing from the hopelessness of everyday conditions of the life of the mass of Jamaicans in the 1930s which surged to prominence in the last half of that decade. It was this flow of events, driven by the imperatives of economic deprivation and social desperation that converged in 1938 with a bang. As a result, it was the ordinary people who settled what needed change and when, by pooling their own demands for improved conditions into a momentous clamour and monstrous protest that broke loose on the waterfront, the sugar estates and in the public streets. That powerful surge was to take Bustamante, who had been riding the tide, to the forefront of leadership and change forever the course of Jamaica's history.

Bustamante harnessed the anger of the working class and organised it into a force which liberated the strength of Jamaican workers to pave the way for that better future. This liberated force of labour is the recurrent theme that was to dominate individual enterprise and political policy over the decades to come. It was the first of many critical stages of our history in which the JLP liberated a new dimension of internal strength from within the people to power them into the next stage of take-off.

That next stage grew out of another phase of brewing frustration and bewildering directions. As an emerging nation gearing toward full independence and self-determination in the 1950s, the course shifted dramatically as the decade aged. Those who championed self-determination from the socialist struggle shifted the focus away from the growing confidence of Jamaicans ready and willing to shoulder the responsibilities of independence as a nation. Great doubt was cast; it was believed that we could not shoulder the responsibilities of independence as a nation. Great doubt was cast; we could not shoulder those burdens alone, it was said. We needed to share the weight with other states much smaller, less populous and at a great distance, who were brothers and sisters we hardly knew. It was, in fact, almost ludicrous: The stronger was to seek succour from the weaker. Resentment grew about our need to rely on lesser states in which we could be bound in a federation as a minority player. The nationalism which had little strength at the outset in the thirties and throughout the forties, was strident enough in the fifties to reject the notion that Jamaica was unable to make its own way as an independent nation.

The Next Phase

Alexander Bustamante and the JLP were absorbed earlier with liberating the power of the working class and focusing their energies on securing a better life. That was the opening mission statement of the JLP. Nationhood was not on the agenda in the early days. Two decades later, as the energy of the worker movement became more and more absorbed in the political drive, a new national focus with a new thrust was needed. As the fifties drew to a close, the frustration and ambivalence of Jamaica's involvement in Federation would provide exactly the ferment that would be required to create the surge to the next dynamic phase of Jamaican history.

The JLP, led by Sir Alexander Bustamante, moved to the forefront of the impasse, took the driver's seat, directed the traffic and pulled Jamaica out of its paralytic association in the Federation of the West Indies with a resounding victory in the Referendum of September 19, 1961, a pivotal date in our history.

The independence of Jamaica which followed the JLP-led withdrawal from Federation was to be the new springboard. But it had its uncertainties. Many wondered, as in 1944, whether we were ready for leadership, this time entirely on our own. And the same people who doubted the process of political advancement in 1944 were the same who expressed fears in 1962: the money interests, landed proprietors, and the emerging middle class of substance. From these fears once again, the call was for a steady hand holding a steady course. The JLP again was the people's choice, by general elections on April 10, 1962, to take Jamaica through this period of uncertainty.

New Dynamism

As Independence dawned on August 6 of that year, a new dynamism emerged: The creation of national symbols - the flag, the anthem, the motto; the showcasing of our traditional culture, now feelingly more so our own than ever before - the Jamaica Festival; the surge of art and craft and a showcase for these talents - Things Jamaican and Devon House; the salute to national heritage - designation of our National Heroes and the return of the body of Marcus Garvey to Jamaica; the birth of our popular music - ska, rocksteady, reggae.

The first salvo urging Jamaican ownership, the Jamaicanisation programme which led to:

The birth of the Jamaican Life Insurance Industry;

The Jamaicanisation of the financial sector;

Jamaican share ownership in publicly quoted stocks on the stock exchange,

The self-confidence of a nation of emerging economic strength expanding rapidly in mining. manufacturing, tourism and commerce;

The launch of a national airline, Air Jamaica;

The introduction of landmark social legislation and the expansion of social facilities - introduction of the National Insurance Scheme, new hospitals (Cornwall Regional and the Children's Hospital), introduction of family planning and doubling the number of secondary schools;

Membership in international institutions, giving us pride of place.

The decade of the sixties was no mere release of energy. It was an outburst of positive, patriotic, productive, broad-based initiative, exuberance, creativity, enterprise and application of effort which has not been duplicated since. It was Jamaica's golden age, the second wave of liberation of the positive energies of the Jamaican people with the JLP leading the way.

Had we continued on this route, the Jamaica of today would have been among the noted success cases of the developing world. But that was not to be the case. The People's National Party was elected to govern on February 29, 1972. It was their second period as government. Where the first effort under Norman Manley was dominated by the failed federal adventure, the second period under Michael Manley became dominated again by a foreign adventure, this time with an alien ideology and uneasy fraternity with socialist and communist bloc nations. This adventure also failed but not before Jamaica was torn and shredded.

Michael Manley tried to do what Bustamante and the JLP had done in the first and second terms of government. Where Bustamante had liberated the dynamic of the working class and energised a prideful independent people, Manley wanted to unleash the Jamaican psyche, to raise social consciousness and create an egalitarian society.

Great Difference

There was a great difference in the two approaches. The JLP liberated a positive dynamic which created a bigger cake to share. It was a "pulling-up" process which was fuelled by the inner need to create, and achieved more. The PNP was more concerned with dividing the cake into equal slices, a process which fed on envy of those whose bigger shares should be sliced thinner, a negative, "pulling-down" process.

Recent events recall the rejection of the "pulling down" ideologies as we have now come to see in the world-wide demise of socialism and communism. They failed not because they were devoid of noble ideals, but because they were ideologies created from the top by authors who never asked the poor what was the first priority on their agenda. Had they done so they would have understood that economic betterment is the simple ideological priority of ordinary people which ranks first and second. The anger and frustration of diminishing slices of the national cake toppled the Berlin Wall and crushed the distributive ideologies.

Mission of the '80s

The forces liberated by adventure in socialism in the seventies did not succeed in expanding or building substance to increase the national cake. Hence, once again, the seventies were a period of intense frustration and danger, as in the thirties, and to a lesser extent the late-fifties. This set the stage for the third liberating movement which was to unleash a whole new dynamism in the 1980s. And again, the JLP led this thrust and charted the course which was to shape Jamaica's future. I had the responsibility to lead Jamaica into this new dynamic phase of the 1980s.

A legacy of the 1970s was the dependency of the individual on the state, a natural outcome of the primacy of the state in socialist doctrine. In contrast, individual initiative and enterprise were to be the theme of the 1980s. This was the untapped reservoir of energy to be liberated, a process began in the early days but stifled in the seventies. The mission of the 1980s was to open this valve and release the energy of this enormous human potential responding to the push of achievement and the pull of reward.

In contrast to the closed society of the seventies, the eighties were to become the stage for the new lifestyle of the open society, In this process of "freeing-up", encumbrances to initiative and enterprise would have to go.

Government beauracracy would be deregulated starting with import controls, price controls and the simplification of the tax system. Later, exchange control regulations would have to follow.

Demotivating taxes would be reduced to levels which did not stifle incentive. Punitive income tax rates were simplified and reduced; import tariffs were decreased in stages to more acceptable levels.

The change of government on February 9, 1989 shattered the fragile model of economic management which had successfully restored the economic path of progress from which the country had been diverted over the previous dozen years. What followed was painful recent history.

Gentler Nation

The valve to unleash new energies to propel the country forward to the end of the decade and century has its roots in the turmoil and abuses of the 1970s. It was in that decade that Jamaicans awoke to the realisation that the Constitution of Jamaica chartered for Independence in 1962 was devised for a much kinder and gentler nation. Certainly it was written in the shadow of those unwritten understandings which ensured that the subjects of the United Kingdom needed no written charter. Everyone knew where the lines of misconduct were drawn and if the letter of the law did not spell out precisely the limits of power, no one would misuse the laxity of law to abuse the parameters of power because that simply wouldn't be cricket. Long and great traditions established the boundaries of permissible levels of tolerance.

As a young nation we have no such long and great traditions of our own. We borrow from other nations those values -- which govern society and reject what we wish, when we wish to abuse the system. That plainly was the mode followed to instigate the most draconian violation of human values in our nation's history when the infamous State of Emergency was declared on June 19, 1976, on the flimsiest of grounds to justify the meanest of ends: political survival. Jamaicans learned then that our constitution was elastic and could be stretched to shape many unconstitutional conveniences.

The JLP learned too, that year, that something had to be done to limit the elasticity of our Constitution which was not so much defective in what it says, but that it spoke in a soft voice where a stronger, firmer and more definite position should be stated. And where the Constitution was not the instrument of abuse the spirit of the Constitution was mauled by the power of the prime minister. In the late-1970s, the JLP charted the course to whittle down these powers that opened the way to abuses in sensitive areas of our national life.

Landmark Decision

The power of the prime minister was the first phase of this mission and his right through his minister to control electoral affairs, the first target. Out of this came the landmark decision in 1979 to remove the control of the minister over electoral affairs and the establishment of an independent Electoral Committee to take his place.  The mechanism for selecting the independent members by the governor general after consultation with the prime minister and leader of the opposition removed the final power of decision by the prime minister to make the choice on his own. Next came the removal of that same power of unilateral decision making from other sensitive legislation already in existence: the ombudsman and the Integrity Commission, both in 1985.

Thereafter, legislation establishing the contractor general and media commission followed this course in 1985 and 1986, again ensuring that the prime minister would have no unilateral power to name the membership of these commissions but would have only consultative power on the same basis as the Leader of the Opposition in advising the governor general in making his choice.

The next phase in this course was to reduce the unilateral power of the Prime Minister in the appointment of members of the Police Service Commission and to remove the control of the police force from the minister, exactly as was done 14 years earlier with the electoral system.

People's Expectation

The struggle does not end with reducing the power of government at the level of the prime minister. The abuse of human rights still continues. I set our position clearly before the country in advocating the enactment of a new constitutional figure, the public defender, to deal with such abuses.

This would strengthen the hands of "we the people" in contrast to the existing structure which protects and licences "we the government". It is a reversal of the role of power and resolution of whose hands ultimate power will reside that the new dynamic of a truly free people will evolve.

Mission of the '90s

Having freed the working class in the thirties, freed the federal bonds in the fifties to pave the way for Independence in the sixties, freed the country from the blight of socialism in the seventies, freed the economy in the eighties from stifling controls, it remains now to free "we the people" from our own excesses in political empowerment. The JLP has led the struggle through each of the stages of liberalisation and must accept this as a further mission. Notwithstanding the imminent hardships of today there are fundamentally deeper concerns which we fail to observe, prejudicing the ability of the nation to protect its poor and vulnerable.

All men are equal under the law, says the Constitution. But, in practice, we ignore this precept honouring some as first-class citizens but dishonouring the great majority as second-class. Those in the underclass cannot contribute effectively to the building of the nation. They lack the education and the will to work condemning themselves to the seventy per cent of the population that are dependent on others for help. Until all men have equal respect and equal education they cannot contribute equally because they are unwilling and unable. The building of the nation will rest on the 30 per cent who are more privileged but they are insufficient to give the nation growth.

Chapter 111 of the Constitution, the Human Rights section, has been virtually rewritten to produce a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. This is the instrument required to ensure that men have the right to be equal. The Charter, of which I was the principal initiator, shifts the power of constitutional authority to "we the people". This prevents any more draconian measures of injustice which widen the gap between "we the people and them", the "haves and the have nots".

Every year, schools graduate twice as many students who are uneducated as those with an education. The uneducated are left behind with crippled careers while the educated go forward. This is the wellspring of poverty, the source from which all injustice is derived, the splitting of the society into first- and second-class citizens.

The Charter of Rights, if put to work and not left to rot, or to serve the elusive benefit of the privileged, can create what all the plans of the past have failed to do: it will lay the course with the sure hands that guided Jamaica through the uncertain pathways of the crossroads of our history when it steadied the ship, righted the course and sailed into safe harbour.

And now having freed the working class in the thirties; freed the bonds of federation in the fifties to pave the way for Independence in the sixties; freed the country from the political blight of socialism in the seventies; freed the economy for production in the eighties, it remains now to free "we the people" through the Charter of Rights.

Let the Charter be your Magna Carta, let it be your book of life to complete the liberation led by the JLP. "We the people" must be satisfied with nothing less than to unleash the powerful energies of the Charter of Rights to fulfil our destiny as a people. That will be our greatest liberating mission of all.

July 14, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Bahamas Blog International

Is The Bahamas Government Indebted to Peter Nygard?

Who Has Taken The Bahamas Back?

Tribune 242 Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas



ALTHOUGH the PLP have tried to downplay the Nygard video posted on YouTube in the past few days, judging from comments on social media and the number of tapes e-mailed to us for our information, we do not think it wise for government to continue with its dismissive claim that the matter is of “no importance”.

The matter is of grave importance because government will have to make certain important decisions about Mr Nygard’s development at Nygard Cay involving the Canadian’s present and future investments there. Some of these developments are bitterly opposed by a large segment of our population.

Bahamians want to know whether its government is now so indebted to Mr Nygard that his interests will come before those of the citizens of this country.

Mr Christie might be out of the Bahamas this weekend, but judging by the alarmed and angry comments sent to us, we think it would be wise for him to make a statement as soon as possible to clarify the video’s declaration: “Nygard takes the Bahamas back.”

During last year’s election, we heard persistent rumours about the Nygard involvement in the PLP campaign. This tape seems to confirm the rumours.

Mr Nygard has always been close to the PLP government. We recall him trying to win over the FNM when it became the government in 1992. However, he was rebuffed and so now the video shows him with raised champagne glass, shouting “Victory! Victory! Take our country back!”

Before the Pindling government was defeated in 1992, we recall Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham questioning the duty-free concessions granted by that government for Mr Nygard to build his pad at Lyford Cay. The late Paul Adderley was finance minister at the time.

On the FNM’s 1992 victory, we received a very official-looking invitation announcing that the Ingraham election celebrations were to be hosted at the Lyford Cay home of one Mr Peter Nygard. The way the invitation arrived at our office gave us the impression that it was issued by government. We don’t usually attend such functions, but on this occasion we decided to go.

We weren’t at Nygard Cay very long before we realised that something was not quite right. For an official function of celebration, we saw no one that we would have expected at such a party. Mr Ingraham was not there. Nor did we see any member of his government. It was obvious that for some reason the Nygard Cay party had been boycotted. We quickly left.

The following day, we got a proper teasing from one of our nephews, who laughingly told us that the last place he would have expected his uncle and aunt to be seen would be Nygard Cay. At the time we knew nothing about Mr Nygard. It was not until we went to Canada the following year that we discovered that he was a noted fashion designer.

We understand that Mr Nygard made another effort to extend the olive branch when on the 500th anniversary of the landing of Columbus at San Salvador, he sent each member of the Ingraham government a sports jacket. In fact for his first ten years in government, Mr Ingraham did not meet Mr Nygard.

However, later he was casually introduced to him at an Exuma regatta when Nygard, surrounded by his usual bevy of girls, was presented to him.

However, Mr Nygard obviously wants the world to know how close he is to the Christie government’s inner circle — in fact the deference shown him by government ministers on being introduced to him, suggests that Nygard heads that circle.

Mr Nygard is obviously unaware of our form of government, and fails to realise what embarrassment he has probably caused Mr Christie. It is now for Mr Christie to inform him that we are not a banana republic and therefore — contrary to what Bahamians are now suggesting — not for sale, or “resale” as one Bahamian remarked in disgust.

The video opens with Nygard on his tropical property. It then moves to the Bahamian flag with the words Election 2012 emblazoned across it and announcing that it is the Nygard Victory party. The video then shows the night of Mr Christie’s acceptance speech as he thanks his PLP supporters for making the victory possible. The camera, then breaks in with Nygard, raised champagne glass in hand, shouting “Victory!” from the comfort of his palatial home, surrounded by his young women.

The camera then flashes back to the rally. Mr Christie tells the crowd that they ought to take pride and credit for putting him in his position and they would have to work together to “make this the best little country in the entire world.” Flash back to Nygard: “Yeh, the best! The best!”

Back to Mr Christie and the rally: “You have been so good for us, so good for me, so good for my colleagues, we tell you tonight it is our solemn, solemn duty to respond in kind by how we perform. PLP! PLP! PLP!”

“Victory! Victory!” shouts Nygard with raised glass as one of the girls kisses him on his cheek and he gives another a high five. “We took our country back!” he shouts jubilantly.

The first of four videos ends with a photo of Mr Nygard and the Bahamas Prime Minister over the words: “Taking our country back”.

The camera — cleverly switching from the Nygard home with his girls and champagne glasses and then back to the Christie rally — could leave the viewer with the impression that Mr Christie’s last words were directed – not to the Bahamian people — but to Mr Nygard.

To whom did he refer when he said: “You have been so good for us, so good for me, so good for my colleagues, we tell you tonight it is our solemn, solemn duty to respond in kind by how we perform.”

Bahamians elected Perry Gladstone Christie as its prime minister, not Mr Peter J Nygard.

Mr Christie would be well advised to explain his position and that of his government to the Bahamian people.

July 15, 2013

Tribune 242

Bahamas Blog International

Preaching abstinence is insufficient for dealing with Jamaica's problem of teenage pregnancy

Widening front against teenage pregnancies

Jamacia Gleaner Editorial:




We look forward to urgent introduction and robust application of Education Minister Ronnie Thwaites' promised "positive, value-laden and age-appropriate family-life curriculum" in Jamaica's schools. 

For, like Mr Thwaites, this newspaper believes that there is value in having a moral component to education, including encouraging adolescents to delay sex and to value it as a special gift of love between committed adults.

Yet, we do not agree that preaching abstinence is sufficient for dealing with Jamaica's problem of teenage pregnancy, which was highlighted by the National Family Planning Board (NFPB) as part of yesterday's commemoration of World Population Day.

The problem is not as bad as, say, 40 years ago when we began to robustly address the problem of the high birth rate among adolescents in Jamaica, when the rate was 137 per 1,000. It has since nearly halved, to 72 births per 1,000 for girls in the 15-19 age group.

This achievement, however, masks the crisis of childbearing among teenagers. Indeed, nearly 54 per cent of all births in Jamaica are the result of teenage and preteen pregnancies, including about one per cent to girls between 12 and 14. Around a third of these pregnancies were wholly unintended.

Pregnancies among teens tend to short-circuit their education and trap them in a cycle of intergenerational poverty. In that regard, we support Minister Thwaites' declared policy of teenage mothers being reintegrated into the formal school system having given birth. Indeed, we applaud the effort of those organisations, in particular the Women's Centre of Jamaica Foundation, which have long facilitated teenage mothers continuing their education.

These efforts, though, are not enough. The problem ought to be attacked with all available tools if we are to accelerate the wish for a decline in the adolescent birth rates.

Condoms and more

Those tools should also be available to young people, which is why we support the call by the NFPB for them to receive "sexual and reproductive health information and be allowed access to services that will enable them to prevent these undesirable outcomes".

This access should include, but not be limited to, availability of condoms and other birth-control methods in schools, which would be dispensed after appropriate counselling.

The fact is that, despite our best intentions and the messages to delay sex, three quarters of Jamaicans in the 15-19 age group are sexually active. Hopefully, Education Minister Thwaites' new family-life curriculum will lead to a drastic reduction of this ratio.

In the meantime, the problem remains, causing us to find congruence with Ronnie Thwaites' son, Mr Daniel Thwaites, the lawyer/philosopher who contributes regularly to this newspaper.

He proposes the coexistence of information to help students make better value-based decisions about sex and the availability of prophylactics.

Daniel Thwaites wrote: "I reckon that while we continue to explore the outer limits of a society without restraints, young people shouldn't be allowed to fend for themselves in ignorance and without the appropriate tools. There are sharks out there, so swimmers need strong suits."
We agree!

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
July 12, 2013

Jamacia Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

Happy 40th Independence Anniversary Bahamas... ...Enormous Challenges Ahead for the Bahamian People and Nation

The road to reform

PM places focus on constitutional change

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

This week will be a week of celebration in The Bahamas as the country observes its 40th anniversary of independence.

But it is also being marked by debate over what kind of nation we have built since July 10, 1973.

Bahamians everywhere know what the challenges are for us at this time: High crime, a still shaky economy, poor socialization, educational challenges and a lack of economic empowerment, which was the topic of last week’s National Review.

Prime Minister Perry Christie has also decided that the 40th anniversary is an ideal time to take another stab at constitutional reform.

This morning, he is set to receive the report of the Constitutional Commission, which was headed by former Attorney General Sean McWeeney, QC.

The report to be presented to the prime minister at the British Colonial Hilton hotel this morning is expected to make significant recommendations.

The question of citizenship and the inability of Bahamian women married to foreign men to automatically pass citizenship on to their children was among the issues addressed by the McWeeney commission.

At the time of the commission’s appointment last year, Christie said, “It’s a very important issue and it’s one that we indicated that we are prepared to put to the people of the country.”

ABERRATION

Explaining how this provision ended up in the constitution, Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes, who was a part of constitutional negotiations in 1972, said in a recent interview, “The argument was that in matters of citizenship the international practice was that the women follow the men and I suppose that was true.

“Some of us took the position that at this time, you know the world is moving on, and that women should be equal in every respect, including bequeathing citizenship on their foreign spouses and their children [we believed that it should be equal].

“There should be no difference between getting citizenship between the mother and the father.  The British government did not agree with that at the time, and so we still have what I regard as an aberration in our constitution and it is a matter now that we have debated before and it is a matter now that I believe the Constitutional Commission is looking at again.

“What you see today is what exists in the constitution, that there should be a difference between the acquisition of citizenship between the male and the female and that was the fundamental difference and the British government of course prevailed on that issue.”

Former Cabinet Minister George Smith, who was also a part of the official delegation to the Constitutional Conference in 1972, agreed that it is time to clear up any misrepresentation about the question of citizenship.

“All those people who were born in The Bahamas prior to 1973 should be made citizens of The Bahamas unless there is some security reasons for them not to be,” Smith said.

“So we have some weighty issues to address in our constitution.  The only way we can do it is to take away any political division and look very maturely at what changes ought to be made, how we can modernize it, how we could celebrate citizenship and put the question to the Bahamian people in a way where the Bahamian people understand that the leaders of our country have looked at these issues and they agree on them.

“This is why it is important for both sides of the political divide to come together as one, to look at the document, agree on it and even have some all party conference prior to it going to the people in a referendum, so that when it gets to the people in a referendum a simple question is put, not a complicated question.”

MODERN

Sir Arthur opined that while reform is a good thing, The Bahamas has a modern constitution.

“We have a constitution that guarantees, with the exception of what we talked about earlier, rights and those rights are spelt out in our constitution,” he said.

“Our system of governance, it’s a good system and our constitution is based on the idea of parliamentary democracy and one of the fundamentals of that is this, and sometimes people forget this, the fundamental idea of a parliamentary democracy is that a people are governed by their own elected representatives.

“That’s the bottom line and all the other things are built on that foundation and we have been governed by our own elected representatives and in the last 40 years we’ve had, I think, four changes of government and they’ve all gone smoothly and at the end of the day when it is time for election, in our system of governance there’s no question about who is responsible.”

Sir Arthur said the citizenship issue is the most pressing issue crying for reform.

But he said, “We have to be very careful that we don’t tamper with the fundamentals of our constitution.

“For instance, I hear people talk about term limits (for the prime minister). Why do we want to import elements of a different kind of constitution, the American constitution, into our constitution where obviously they do not fit?

“...I don’t think Bahamians would like that. I think Bahamians ought to decide through their political parties who they want to lead us.  If they want someone to lead us for five years, fine, 10 years, fine, 15 years [fine].  It should be a choice for the Bahamian people.”

The governor general also believes this might be an appropriate juncture to re-examine the role of the Senate.

He said both the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement have used the Senate in ways not originally contemplated.

“The idea of the Senate was supposed to be at the end of the day your senior politicians, your statesmen would sit in that [august] House.  That’s why we call it the upper House and that’s why the title you attach is honorable.

“These are men and women who have been through the system, who are senior, who are mature.  These are the people who should be sitting in the upper House. Both political parties for the same reasons really have decided to use the Senate as a training ground and as a consolation prize for defeated candidates and that has undermined the whole idea of the Senate and this idea of its seniority and statesmanship and all of that.”

MONARCHY

Loftus Roker, a former minister in the Pindling cabinet who also attended the 1972 talks, pointed out that many Bahamians do not understand their constitution.

“I don’t believe it is taught in the schools or anything,” he said.  “I don’t believe we know what the constitution is all about. A constitution is the basis of our sovereignty and to willy nilly change that in my view is folly because if the average person believes this is only a piece of paper and you could tear it up and put another piece of paper there any time you like, that’s trouble.”

It is not clear at this point whether the McWeeney commission will recommend The Bahamas move away from the monarchy.

“I know the monarchy bothers a lot of people and it used to bother me too,” Roker said.

“You know when I was a student in London I decided one of the first things I will do if I get the chance is to move Queen Victoria’s statue from where it is and throw it in the ocean.  It’s in Parliament Square…I don’t want nothing to do with it. It is still there.

“I discovered that there is something called history and you shouldn’t try to destroy history and history would still be there even if you destroyed it.  You can’t give it away and we need to know what happened so we can know where we are going.”

Roker noted that the queen at no time has any power to do anything without the advice and instruction of the government of The Bahamas.

She is purely a figurehead represented in The Bahamas by the governor general.

Roker said the decision was made to leave the queen as a figurehead to comfort people who feared independence.

“We left her there as a symbol,” he said.  “That is why we also kept the Privy Council because they were saying Bahamian judges and all of that were going to do all sorts of foolish things.  And we decided we would leave the Privy Council there as some last resort that you can go to that we don’t influence.”

REFERENDUM

This is the second such commission appointed by Christie.

He appointed the first on December 23, 2002, and mandated it to carry out a comprehensive review and make recommendations that would strengthen fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights of the individual, and critically examine the structure of the executive authority.

Important work was done by commission chairs, the late former Attorney General Paul L. Adderley and Harvey Tynes, QC, who, together with the other members of that commission, traveled the country extensively, holding town meetings and gathering the views of Bahamians on what they would like to see changed.

But that commission died a swift death — as did its recommendations — when in 2007, the Free National Movement (FNM) was re-elected.

Hubert Ingraham, prime minister at the time, was weary of dealing with constitutional issues and proposing reforms.

At his first press conference as newly re-elected prime minister at the Cabinet Office one Sunday, he declared to reporters that there would be no more referenda under his watch.

Five years earlier, Bahamian voters overwhelmingly rejected key questions put to them in a referendum brought by the Ingraham administration.

The current Christie administration has already revealed that it intends to call a referendum intended to eliminate discriminatory clauses from the constitution.

This is what Ingraham attempted back in February 2002.   But the perhaps pure intentions of the then government were overshadowed by a divisive political climate and the issues of the referendum were derailed.

There is a tendency for politics in The Bahamas to overshadow much.

In some circles, there exists the view, for instance, that the independence celebrations are PLP celebrations.

The current Constitutional Commission has had a strong mix of well-respected Bahamian professionals.  Former Attorney General Carl Bethel was the opposition’s representative.

We shall have to wait and see whether the process leading to the next constitutional referendum is able to proceed without the smear of political posturing.

If not, reform could once again be impossible to achieve.

July 08, 2013

thenassauguardian

...the difficult questions of citizenship and the dangerous problem of stateless people in The Bahamas

Future Peace Of The Nation Depends On Citizenship Issue 

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

pnunez@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

THE chances of a peaceful future for the Bahamas may depend on whether the difficult questions of citizenship and the dangerous problem of stateless people is dealt with, the Constitutional Commission has warned.

Noting the “perceived unfairness” in the system as it currently stands, and the serious implications of a very large number of people living in the country without status, the commission recommended that a special task force examine citizenship issues and report back as quickly as possible.

“This must be made a matter of high priority for the government.  The future peace and internal harmony of Bahamian society may well depend on it,” the report said.

“The commission cannot overstate the enormous psychological, socio-economic and other ill-effects that result from leaving large groups of persons in limbo in relation to their aspirations for Bahamian citizenship.

“Not only are the affected individuals badly damaged and marginalised, the entire society is put at risk and its future compromised by having within its borders a substantial body of persons who, although having no knowledge or experience of any other society, are made to feel that they are intruders without any claim, moral or legal, for inclusion.

“Such feelings of alienation and rejection are bound to translate into anti-social behaviour among many members of what is, in effect, a very large underclass in our society,” the report said.

The commission said citizenship was a top priority among those it interviewed prior to compiling the report – second only to the death penalty.

Among the recommendations in this area were that all provisions relating to the acquisition of citizenship and its transmission to children be expressed in “gender-neutral” language, so as to remove any sign of discrimination against women.

“Most persons who spoke to the commission or made presentations were of the view that the discriminatory provisions ought to be removed, although there were occasional instances of a clinging to some of the patrilineal provisions in the current constitution,” the report said.

“The point on which there was the greatest divide related to the general provisions providing for citizenship. There could be found no agreement on this issue, particularly with regard to how to treat persons born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents . . . a group that includes the numerically large native-born children of Haitian immigrants to the Bahamas.”

The commission said given the size and complexity of this problem, its work was only preliminary and must be continued.

But, the report emphasised, “the commission is not in favour of automatic citizenship by reason only of birth on Bahamian soil.”

Among its specific recommendations in this area were that:

• the reference to filius nullius, (child of no father) be deleted to remove any difference in treatment based on the marital status of the parent.

• Bahamian men and women have the equal ability to transmit citizenship to their foreign spouses under Article 10, except that there should be provisions (preferably in the Nationality and Immigration Acts) to guard against marriages of convenience.

• amendments be made to ensure that those persons born to Bahamians outside the Bahamas, as well as persons born to non-Bahamians in the Bahamas would not be rendered stateless.

• the ability of a Bahamian father or mother to transmit their citizenship to their children born overseas should be a right not conditioned on how the parent acquired citizenship.

• the provision that applications for citizenship must be submitted within 12 months after the applicant turns 18 be reconsidered.

• changes be made to ensure both men and women can pass on Bahamian citizenship to their children, regardless of marital status.

• the position with respect to dual citizenship or nationality should be stated, and in particular persons who are eligible for Bahamian citizenship should not be denied registration simply because they possess another nationality. Renunciation of another citizenship should also not be made a condition to the grant of citizenship.

SIDEBAR - The issue of statelessness

From the section of the commission’s report on citizenship

The commission notes, and it has also been drawn to its attention in the presentation from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that several provisions of the constitution might have the effect of creating a class of persons who are stateless.

The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as “a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its laws.”

As was further indicated in the submission from the UNHCR, these provisions of the constitution are not only “contrary to the ICCPR and CEDAW, but also problematic in light of the Bahamas’ obligations pursuant to the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child).”

The most significant of these under our constitution is Article 7 which operates to reduce many persons to a situation of effective statelessness, as the persons who are primarily affected are either unwilling or unable to avail themselves of the other nationality to which they are entitled.

Needless to say, the majority of persons who fall into this category are children born in the Bahamas to Haitian parents.

The issue of statelessness arises in respect of this category of persons as set out below. The Haitian constitution provides for persons to acquire nationality through descent, but only if either of their parents is native-born, and have never renounced their citizenship (Article 11, 1987 Constitution of Haiti).

Thus, those persons born in the Bahamas to a native-born Haitian parent who has not renounced Haitian citizenship would become Haitian nationals at birth and retain it indefinitely thereafter.

But if their parents are not native-born or have renounced, they would effectively be stateless. Thus the right to claim Haitian citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation.

Even where persons falling into this category are entitled to Haitian citizenship, most choose not to acquire Haitian passports, as in any event they would be required to renounce that citizenship at 18 to acquire Bahamian citizenship.

The Haitian Constitution forbids dual Haitian and foreign nationality.

Children born abroad to a Bahamian parent in circumstances where they are unable to acquire the nationality of the Bahamian parent may also be at risk of statelessness, at least until they reach the age of majority.

For example, under Article 8, the right of a father to transmit his citizenship is not available if he himself acquired his citizenship by descent and was not native-born.

Similarly, with respect to a Bahamian female married to a foreign man, the child may be rendered stateless (at least until 18), if the father is unable by the citizenship rules of his country to transmit his citizenship, and if citizenship is not available by birth in the place where the child is born.

Effects of statelessness

The commission cannot overstate the enormous psychological, socio-economic and other ill-effects that result from leaving large groups of persons in limbo in relation to their aspirations for Bahamian citizenship. Not only are the affected individuals badly damaged and marginalised, the entire society is put at risk and its future compromised by having within its borders a substantial body of persons who, although having no knowledge or experience of any other society, are made to feel that they are intruders without any claim, moral or legal, for inclusion. Such feelings of alienation and rejection are bound to translate into anti-social behaviour among many members of what is, in effect, a very large underclass in our society.

The representatives from the Haitian community, in a most frank and open way, shared some of the effects they and others in the Haitian community have suffered:

• Discrimination

• Unable to open a bank account

• Feeling no sense of belonging and feeling rejected

•You feel as if you are the problem

• Not allowed to work in certain jobs

• Young people going through the transitory state are taken advantage of and abused by the authorities

• Many stateless young people feel like aliens not just because they are not automatically entitled to citizenship in their birth country but they also do not feel welcome in the country of their parents’ birth. Essentially, these people become virtually stateless in their own country of birth, the consequence is despair and frustration.

• No opportunity for scholarships afforded to all other children. “These children are cursed to a lifelong penalty and stigma,” one said.

This is obviously a most untenable position in which to place individuals who were born in the Bahamas, have no connection (other than ancestral) to any other country, and have no intention of residing anywhere else.

In this regard, the commission notes the warning of noted Bahamian social scientist, Dr Dawn Marshall, in her classic study on Haitian migration to the Bahamas. Although published in 1979, it is as timely today as it was then:

“The study of Carmichael Road Haitians indicates that many children are being born in the Bahamas who in a decade or two will be claiming their rights as Bahamian citizens. Not all of these native-born Haitians will docilely accept the denial of their rights. It is time, then, that the Bahamas government begins to think about the future of these potential citizens and not condemn them to personal destinies of isolation and relative deprivation.”

July 09, 2013

Tribune 242

PETROCARIBE consolidated as regional force

• Group rejects Cuba’s inclusion on list of nations sponsoring terrorism

 

MANAGUA.— Petrocaribe was founded eight years ago as an Energy Cooperation Accord, in an effort to respond to world economic conditions and prevailing policies implemented by industrialized countries which marginalized Third World nations. The enterprise has been consolidated as an economic mechanism with significant impact in the region. This was clearly demonstrated during the recently concluded 8th Summit of the undertaking, based on the ideas of Comandantes Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro.

In his comments to the event held June 29-30 in the Nicaraguan capital, Cuba’s First Vice President Miguel Díaz-Canel said that the regional body is based on solidarity and humanity, helping those who most need an oil supply at fair prices and payment options appropriate for each of the member countries.

Díaz-Canel advocated expanding the objectives of the integrationist bloc, with an economic zone supporting the elimination of poverty and illiteracy, promoting development in the countries which make up the multinational entity.

He added that Cuba supports the establishment of a Petrocaribe Economic Zone and the proposal to extend cooperation with other ALBA countries, according to La Voz del Sandinismo.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said that the entity, established in 2005 by 18 countries in the region, was a way to assure energy security for peoples and allow for the strengthening of economies.

"The Petrocaribe Economic Zone is not conceived as solely serving commercial ends, but also the creation of production sequences in the region, in defense of our peoples’ interests and not those of multinational companies’ centers of power," Ortega said.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro emphasized that Petrocaribe must become a poverty-free zone in which illiteracy is eradicated; better health care provided and a comprehensive food plan developed, AVN reported.

"Defeating illiteracy with education must be first. Second, expanding Mission Miracle and third, implementing a food plan. All of these measures in the spirit of that giant named Hugo Chávez," he added.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, who attended the meeting as a guest, said that this type of initiative emerged "to free ourselves from those who would subjugate us, dominate us and plunder our natural resources."

Morales indicated that his experience in Bolivia has prompted him to propose a new relationship between Petrocaribe and other ALBA countries, to broaden the economic zone and link it to other integrationist entities in the region.

Porfirio Lobo of Honduras commented that the Petrocaribe Economic Zone will help the most needy overcome their challenges.

President Danilo Medina of the Dominican Republic supported the creation of an economic zone and thanked the Venezuelan people for their solidarity with this type of initiative which promotes the region’s development.

Likewise, Haitian President Michel Martelly saluted the efforts of Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro to realize the dream of unity.

Those present at the 8th Summit condemned the arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on the U.S. government list of states which sponsor terrorism, according to PL.

Inclusion on this State Department list implies serious sanctions and, in the case of Cuba, serves to justify the economic, financial and commercial blockade imposed on the country for more than 50 years. (SE)

July 05, 2013

 

Granma.cu

 

Sir Arthur Foulkes: A Father and Founder of the Bahamian Nation

Sir Arthur Foulkes: A Father of the Nation at the 40th

By Simon

A moving and fitting prelude to midnight on the 40th anniversary of independence would be a group of young Bahamians reciting the Preamble to the Constitution which begins: “Whereas four hundred and eighty-one years ago the rediscovery of this family of islands, rocks and cays heralded the rebirth of the New World”.

Many of us are familiar with the poetic relish which introduces the supreme law of the land, a statement of our democratic convictions, inclusive of a charter of freedoms and rights.

There will be one personage even more familiar with the Preamble and the document it introduces. Sir Arthur Foulkes, the eighth Bahamian governor general, drafted the original preamble for the 1969 Constitution.

Though modified for inclusion in the independence Constitution, the heart and thrust of the Preamble flowed from the imagination of one of the modern Bahamas’ more prolific scribes.

School children in the U.S. read about that nation’s founders and constitutional fathers, admiring and honoring them through film, statues and folklore.

In Sir Arthur, the nation enjoys a living father and founder. That he is head of state at the 40th anniversary of independence is a happy and extraordinary privilege for the nation. Other than Arthur D. Hanna, there is no other living Bahamian more suited to preside over our independence celebrations.

When the tricolor gold, black and aquamarine flag is raised against the backdrop of the near midnight sky at Clifford Park next week, invoking independence eve 40 years ago, Sir Arthur will rightly preside.

Flourished

Though one may only guess at the thoughts and emotions that will fill his heart and mind, history will be smiling with him, and the sovereign, democratic and free commonwealth of which he helped to give birth and stability. The nation, like Sir Arthur, has more than survived. Both have flourished.

Born at the farthest end of the archipelago in Mathew Town, Inagua, Sir Arthur’s Bahamian vision encompassed racial, social and economic equality for all Bahamians. He remains a central figure and an icon of the struggle for majority rule and independence.

He was a founding member of the National Committee for Positive Action, an internal pressure group which proved pivotal in the struggle, radicalizing a sometimes cautious PLP.

As early as 1959 the committee held a debate on independence. The NCPA is a case history in political organizing, with no similar group as successful in modern Bahamian history.

Sir Arthur was one the movement’s key strategic thinkers, and certainly its best wordsmith, penning much of the poetry and prose which moved a people and instructed colonialists and others of the rightness and urgency of the cause of freedom in The Bahamas.

With a body of work that includes a career in journalism, memorable speeches – his own and many he wrote for others – as well as half a century as a columnist, Sir Arthur has been one of the country’s leading public intellectuals. In his commitment to social justice and his elegance as a writer he is our Bahamian José Martí.

His body of writing is expansive and his was a familiar and eloquent voice on political platforms throughout the archipelago. He was the driving force behind and editor of Bahamian Times, an indispensable tool in the struggle for racial and social equality.

With the help of a few faithful volunteers including George A. Smith, another surviving constitutional father, Sir Arthur produced the weekly from 1963 until 1967. The newspaper’s office on Wulff Road was a forum for political activists.

Sir Arthur’s prose extended to national documents which also gave voice to freedom’s call. He helped the PLP prepare its contributions for the 1964 Constitution. During his participation in the 1972 independence constitutional talks in London, he and the opposition FNM pressed the case for full equality for women, which the PLP resolutely opposed.

Turmoil

With the Colony of The Bahamas in turmoil because of rising expectations of democratic freedoms amidst the suppression of the aspirations of the majority, the PLP, urged on by the NCPA, heightened its political activity, using nonviolent direct action.

To protest against the UBP’s stubborn refusal to create fair electoral boundaries a three-part strategy included: the events of Black Tuesday, a boycott of the House of Assembly, and a petition to the U.N.’s Committee of 24, the committee on decolonization.

The petition was a comprehensive plea to the U.N. about the dire state of affairs in the colony, and the collusion between the white oligarchy and the British government to lock the majority out of political and economic power.

Designed to embarrass the British government into acting, the petition covered matters ranging from the lack of labor laws to insidiously unfair boundary arrangements.

Others like Warren Levarity, Jeffrey Thompson and Simeon Bowe contributed to the effort but it was left to Sir Arthur Foulkes to pen the final document. It was described by a U.N. official as one the best ever presented to the committee.

As an aside, it speaks to the character of Sir Arthur that he was able to vigorously oppose U.K. colonial rule, and yet serve graciously and with no malice towards the British as high commissioner to the Court of St. James, eventually becoming the Queen’s representative.

All heroes and heroines have clay feet. Yet there is a genius or courage in them which inspires in their fellow citizens a desire to memorialize the marbled stature and singular contribution of such heroes.

Nelson Mandela’s 27 years imprisonment on Robben Island, his endurance, along with that of other freedom fighters was the ground of sacrifice in which democracy took root and from which it sprang in South Africa.

Freedom fighters like Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield and Sir Arthur bent the arc of freedom here at home, enduring much to help secure Bahamian democracy. As PLPs they labored for racial equality, helping to form the first majority rule government in 1967.

Bigger

For Sir Cecil and Sir Arthur, freedom’s cause was bigger than a single party or personality, indeed the two men often went their separate ways. Yet, they enjoyed a singular democratic conviction.

In the eventuality, they quickly left the comforts of power for the slog of opposition, which endured for a quarter of a century, as the powers that be sought to destroy them with unyielding and vicious tactics.

Alarmed at the early autocratic inclinations of Sir Lynden, the cult of personality being created around him, broken promises and the abandonment of collegiality, Sir Cecil, Sir Arthur and six fellow dissidents broke from their political home to provide others in the movement with a new home from which to realize the values and ideas of the broader movement for social justice.

Their brave actions ensured a vibrant two-party system. The FNM helped save Bahamian democracy. Both Sir Lynden Pindling and Arthur Hanna often stated that few sacrificed more for the movement than Sir Arthur.

Sir Cecil died before the FNM’s election to office in 1992. Twenty-one years later Sir Arthur is still flourishing. Having pledged his governor generalship to the youth of the commonwealth he has performed in office with vigor and dignity.

Having been at home in both major political parties, he counts friends in both. The beauty of our system and a pride of 40 years of independence is that we have a PLP government and a governor general appointed on the recommendation of an FNM administration. This is not bipartisanship. This is nonpartisanship.

By personality and by democratic conviction, Sir Arthur pledged to represent all Bahamians. He has done so gracefully, and with no hint of partisanship. He is beloved by FNMs and PLPs alike. He is a true symbol of unity.

Sir Arthur’s Bahamian journey represents the best of the Bahamian spirit, and the enduring struggle for what is essentially good about us as a people.

Even as we recall our failings as a nation, there is much to celebrate. This is certainly Sir Arthur’s conviction. He should know. He knows whence we came, and delights in the possibilities of current and future generations.

To have Sir Arthur as a father of the nation at the 40th is more than a privilege. His presence, and his vigilance as a fellow citizen pay testimony and witness to a history of struggle and transcendence by a proud people committed to equality and freedom. It is a history worthy of celebration and emulation.

July 04, 2013

thenassauguardian