The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first - 21st century

The emerging international order

THE DECLINE OF IMPERIAL INTIMIDATION:  THE WORLD IS MOVING BEYOND THE POLITICS OF DOMINATION

October 11, 2026

By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena

Nassau, The Bahamas

The rise of a multipolar world, the limits of coercive power, and Africa’s historic demand for two seats at the United Nations, will happen.

The global order is undergoing a profound transformation.  For decades, economic sanctions, military superiority, financial dominance, and political pressure have served as instruments through which powerful nations have attempted to influence the behaviour of others.

Yet the world is increasingly demonstrating that possessing overwhelming power does not automatically translate into political submission.

The United States’ use of sanctions against international judicial institutions raises fundamental questions about the relationship between power, international law, and accountability.

When powerful states use economic or political pressure against institutions tasked with upholding international justice, concerns arise about the independence of those institutions and the consistency with which international rules are applied.

The central argument is not that American influence has disappeared, nor that sanctions have become meaningless.  It is that imperial intimidation is no longer a universally reliable instrument for securing obedience.

Nations are increasingly willing to resist external pressure, diversify their international partnerships, and defend their right to determine their own political and economic futures.

Machiavelli and the traditional architecture of power

Niccolò Machiavelli captured one of the enduring principles of political domination in The Prince:

“It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII.

For centuries, this logic has informed the exercise of political power.  Fear, punishment, and the threat of consequences have been used to discourage resistance and reinforce hierarchies.  In international relations, economic sanctions, military deployments, and diplomatic isolation can function as instruments of coercion.

But the critical question confronting the modern world is whether fear alone can sustain international dominance when targeted nations develop alternative economic relationships, strengthen domestic resilience, and establish strategic partnerships with other powers.

The answer is increasingly complicated.  Sanctions can inflict serious economic damage, but economic pain does not invariably produce political capitulation.  Military superiority can deter adversaries, but it does not automatically secure their cooperation.

Financial dominance can create leverage, but that leverage may diminish when countries develop alternative markets, payment arrangements, and trading relationships.

A superpower may command armies, influence financial systems, and impose sanctions, but it cannot automatically manufacture the consent of nations determined to defend their sovereignty.

Machiavelli also observed the difficulty of establishing a new political order:

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI, in a common English translation.

This observation speaks directly to the contemporary international transition.  Moving from a system shaped predominantly by a handful of powerful states towards a more representative, multipolar arrangement will not happen without resistance.

Existing institutions, strategic interests, and established concentrations of power do not disappear simply because the world demands change.

Nevertheless, the growing insistence on sovereign equality, institutional reform, and a greater distribution of global influence demonstrates that the existing order is being challenged.

The limits of American pressure: Iran and China

Iran’s long-standing resistance to American pressure illustrates the limits of coercive diplomacy.  Decades of sanctions have imposed substantial economic costs, yet they have not compelled Iran to abandon all of its strategic objectives or simply submit to American demands.

This is an important distinction: resisting pressure does not mean escaping its consequences.  Rather, it demonstrates that the relationship between economic coercion and political outcomes is more complex than the assumption that the stronger state can always dictate the result.

China presents a different dimension of the changing international landscape.  Its economic scale, industrial capacity, expanding diplomatic relationships, and growing role in international trade have contributed to a world in which American predominance faces greater competition.

These developments do not mean that the United States has ceased to be a major global power.  They do, however, illustrate why international influence can no longer be understood solely through military supremacy or the ability to impose economic penalties.

The emerging global reality is that power can impose costs without necessarily securing compliance.

The lesson is not that every country resisting American pressure will prevail, but that the outcomes of international confrontations increasingly depend on economic resilience, political legitimacy, strategic alliances, and the willingness of states to absorb the costs of resistance.

Voltaire and the politics of justification

The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire offered a warning about the dangers of unquestioned political narratives:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

— Voltaire, Questions sur les miracles (1765), commonly translated into English.

This quotation offers a useful lens through which to examine how political power is justified.

Throughout history, domination has frequently been defended through narratives that portray the interests of powerful states as synonymous with international stability, security, or civilisation.

Yet a genuinely rules-based international order must be measured by whether its principles are applied consistently, including when those principles challenge the interests of powerful states.

International law cannot command lasting legitimacy if states are expected to respect institutions only when their decisions are politically convenient.

Nor can global justice remain credible if accountability appears to depend on the relative power of those involved.

The issue is not whether every international institution is beyond criticism.

It is whether disputes should be addressed through lawful processes, institutional reform, and consistent standards rather than through the assumption that the most powerful actors should determine the limits of accountability.

The question facing the international community is therefore straightforward: can a system claim to uphold universal principles while allowing geopolitical power to shape how those principles are respected?

Africa must claim its rightful place in the global order

For Africa, the transformation of the international system represents a historic opportunity.

The continent must not remain a spectator while decisions affecting international peace, security, finance, trade, and development are made in institutions where its representation remains inadequate.

“Africa’s exclusion is not only unacceptable, unfair, and grossly unjust; it also undermines the very credibility of the United Nations.”

— William Ruto

Africa’s demand for two permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council is central to this struggle.

The Security Council was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, and its permanent membership reflects the distribution of power at that historical moment.

The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first century are considerably different.  Africa’s population, regional significance, economic potential, natural resources, and contribution to global affairs make the question of its representation increasingly consequential.

The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on a reformed Security Council.  Questions concerning the selection of representatives and the exercise of veto rights remain important elements of the reform debate.

This is not simply a demand for prestige.  It is a demand for a more legitimate international system in which African states have a meaningful role in decisions that affect their security and development.

Africa must not remain a spectator in the making of the world order.  A continent that has contributed profoundly to human civilisation must have a meaningful voice in shaping humanity’s future.

The transition towards a more multipolar world will not automatically resolve Africa’s challenges.  The continent must strengthen regional integration, develop productive capacity, expand intra-African trade, improve governance, and coordinate its diplomatic positions.

Greater representation must be accompanied by the institutional strength and collective strategy required to exercise that influence effectively.

A permanent seat is not an end in itself.  It is part of a wider struggle to ensure that the international system reflects the principle of sovereign equality in practice rather than merely in rhetoric.

Imperialism is losing its power as a universal instrument of intimidation

The deeper transformation taking place is not the disappearance of power, but the changing relationship between power and obedience.

Military capabilities remain consequential.  Economic sanctions continue to influence the behaviour of states.  Financial networks and strategic alliances still shape the international environment.  But none of these instruments guarantees submission in every circumstance.

Countries increasingly assess external pressure against their own national interests, domestic political realities, and alternative international relationships.

Some resist, some negotiate, and others adjust their policies in response to the costs imposed on them.  The outcomes vary, but the assumption that power always produces obedience is no longer sufficient to explain international relations.

This is where the traditional logic of domination encounters its limits.  A world in which more countries can pursue independent partnerships and coordinate their responses to external pressure is a world in which coercion must compete with diplomacy, legitimacy, and cooperation.

The challenge is not to replace one dominant power with another.  It is to build an international system in which no country assumes that superior military or economic strength grants it an unrestricted right to dictate the choices of others.

The true measure of global leadership should not be how effectively a country can intimidate other nations, but how effectively it can build partnerships, earn legitimacy, and sustain cooperation.

Conclusion: A new era of sovereign equality

The world is not yet beyond imperialism, nor has geopolitical coercion become obsolete.  Powerful states continue to possess instruments of influence that can impose substantial costs on weaker countries, for example Cuba’s conflict with America.

But resistance to those instruments, alongside the growth of alternative economic and diplomatic relationships, demonstrates that their effectiveness has limits.

The emerging international order is being shaped by a contest between concentrated power and wider representation, coercion and cooperation, inherited hierarchies and demands for sovereign equality.

For Africa, this moment demands strategic clarity.

The continent must press for meaningful reform of the United Nations Security Council, pursue its claim to two permanent seats, and strengthen the collective institutions necessary to translate its demographic and economic significance into diplomatic influence.

The objective should not be to humiliate one power or celebrate the rise of another.

It should be to establish an international system in which international law is respected, accountability is applied consistently, and the voices of developing nations carry greater weight.

Imperialism may retain its instruments, but those instruments do not guarantee submission.

The defining question of this new global era is whether power will continue to dictate the rules of international life, or whether nations will build a more representative order founded on sovereignty, mutual respect, and meaningful cooperation.

The future will not be determined by military and economic strength alone.  It will also depend on legitimacy, resilience, alliances, and the capacity of nations to shape their own destinies.

Africa and Cuba must be ready to help shape that future.

“There can be no political independence unless there is economic independence.”

— President Fidel Castro, UN General Assembly address, September 26, 1960.

Source / Comment

A Significant Question in Reference to (One Billion Dollars) $1,000,000.00 in Public Money of the National Investment Fund (NIF) - Spent by The Bahamas Government

A Truly Defining Moment for The Bahamian People and The Bahamas

A Moment That Must be Documented for Posterity

By Lynden R. Nairn
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

I do not recall there ever being a question involving as much as $1 billion in The Bahamas with so few answers.  This moment in our history requires documentation for posterity:

1. What is the Government saying?  The Government speaks loudest when it is invited to speak but it remains substantially silent.

2. What is the Official Opposition saying?

3. What are other political parties saying?

4. What is civil society saying?

5. What are individuals of goodwill saying?

This period will mark us.

It is likely to emerge that the Government will have satisfactory answers to many questions that are being raised.

However, in my judgment, it is without question that many questions are likely to remain unanswered.

And for those, myself included, who once thought a sovereign wealth fund was a brilliant idea, we will be incredibly shocked to see what this all means for that concept...aborted before birth.  Perhaps that is the saddest part of all.

Source / Comment

Nassau, The Bahamas: A National Investment Fund (NIF) is Not a Political ATM

The Bahamas is in Need of a Prudent Fiscal Culture

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

Nassau, The Bahamas

By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena

The Bahamas Is Not the Government’s Bank Account

“The practice of funding has gradually enfeebled every state which has adopted it.”

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

More than two centuries later, Adam Smith’s warning still cuts through the noise.

One of the greatest tragedies of the developing world is not necessarily a lack of resources.  It is the failure to turn resources into lasting national wealth.

Countries can have oil and remain deeply indebted.  They can have gold and remain poor.  They can have copper, gas, diamonds and vast natural resources and still struggle to provide their citizens with the prosperity those resources should have generated.

Nigeria is a powerful example.  Angola is another.  Zambia’s experience with copper and sovereign debt is another.

The lesson is uncomfortable:

Natural resources do not make a country wealthy.  Good institutions do.  Fiscal discipline does.  Sound investment does.

And that is why The Bahamas needs to have a very serious conversation about the sovereign funds , national investment funds, debt, regulation and the growing role of the state in the economy.

Because there is a fundamental principle that every government should understand:

Winning an election does not mean you own the country.  You have been entrusted with it.

The Treasury does not belong to the political party in office.  The country’s assets do not become the property of the government because voters gave one party a mandate.  And national investment funds should never be treated as a convenient political bank account.

THE DEBT SHOULD MAKE EVERY BAHAMIAN PAY ATTENTION

The Bahamas has made real progress since the fiscal disaster of the pandemic.  That fact should be acknowledged.

The IMF says the country’s fiscal position has strengthened, with the primary balance remaining in surplus for a third consecutive fiscal year in FY2024/25.  The economy has also recovered strongly, largely because of tourism and construction.

But here is the part we cannot ignore:

Central government debt remains around 74 percent of GDP.  The IMF estimates central-government debt at 74.1 percent of GDP for FY2025 and 72.7 percent for FY2026.  The Fund says additional fiscal consolidation is still necessary to reach the government’s own medium-term target of 50 percent of GDP.

That is not a reason for panic.  It is a reason for discipline.

The Bahamas is a small, open economy.  We are extraordinarily exposed to tourism, global economic conditions, international interest rates and natural disasters.

The IMF specifically identifies a global slowdown that could hurt tourism, tighter financial conditions and natural disasters as downside risks to the Bahamian economy.  So we should not behave as if money will always be available.  It won’t.  Interest rates change.  Tourism changes.  Hurricanes come.  Recessions come.  Financial crises come.  Governments change.  And when the next crisis arrives, the country will wish it had preserved more fiscal space.  Fiscal responsibility is not about being cheap. It is about being prepared.

A GOVERNMENT IS A CUSTODIAN, NOT THE OWNER

This brings us to the National Investment Fund.  Let’s get the facts straight.  The Bahamas’ old Sovereign Wealth Fund Act was repealed and replaced by the National Investment Funds Act, 2022.  The legislation created a framework for national investment funds and explicitly allows funds to be used for purposes including national development and infrastructure.

The Davis administration was quite explicit about this.  In presenting the legislation to Parliament, Prime Minister Philip Davis said The Bahamas Resilient Infrastructure Fund would include a Growth Fund for Family Islands infrastructure, including airports, ports and maritime infrastructure.  The government also said the funds were intended to mobilize private capital and partnerships rather than rely entirely on government revenues or borrowing.

And in 2025, the government confirmed that $265.3 million was transferred into the National Investment Fund, with funds allocated toward capital works at New Bight Airport, Arthur’s Town Airport and Governors Harbour Airport.  The government said the transfer had been authorized by Parliament and that the associated borrowing remained recorded on the government’s balance sheet.  Those are the facts.

So the argument should not be that the government secretly stole money from a sovereign fund or that the law prohibits airport investment.  It doesn’t.

The much bigger question is:

Should scarce national capital—including borrowed money—be placed into a government-controlled investment vehicle and directed toward infrastructure without an exceptionally rigorous test of economic return, risk and opportunity cost?

That is a legitimate question.  And it deserves an answer.

A NATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND IS NOT A POLITICAL ATM

This is where the principles matter.  The government’s own presentation of the 2022 legislation said the National Investment Funds framework was designed around the Santiago Principles, which emphasize transparency, accountability, ethical standards, independence, auditing and public disclosure.  Those principles exist because governments face an enormous temptation.

Politicians think in electoral cycles.  Investment funds must think in decades.

A politician can look at a fund and see money available for a project.  A professional investment manager should look at that same money and ask:  What is the return?  What is the risk?  What is the opportunity cost?  Is this investment commercially viable?  Could private capital do this?  What happens if revenue projections are wrong?  Does this investment preserve or destroy long-term national wealth?

That is the difference between managing national capital and spending national capital.  And it is a distinction we cannot afford to lose.

BORROWING MONEY TO INVEST IS NOT THE SAME AS CREATING WEALTH

This is particularly important.  The government has explained that money was borrowed and then placed into the National Investment Fund for strategic infrastructure investments.  It also says the debt remains fully recorded on the government’s balance sheet.

That clarification is important.  But it raises another question.  What is the return on the investment?

If government borrows $100 million at a certain cost and invests it in an asset that produces a higher risk-adjusted economic return, there may be a rational investment case.  But if the investment produces a return lower than the cost of capital—or requires continuing government subsidies—then the country has not magically created wealth.

It has simply transformed one financial obligation into another asset.  That may still be justified for infrastructure with significant public benefits.

But then the government should show the numbers.  Show the projected return.  Show the assumptions.  Show the risk.  Show the alternatives.  Show the opportunity cost.  Show the public exactly why this is the best use of national capital.  “It’s an investment” is not an economic analysis.

LOOK AT NORWAY

Norway offers an important lesson.  Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global exists to manage petroleum wealth for the long term and to ensure that the wealth benefits both current and future generations.  Its fiscal framework governs how much can be transferred from the fund into government spending, with the long-term guideline based on the fund’s expected real return.

The principle is simple:  Preserve the capital.  Invest the capital.  Earn returns.  Protect the future.

That is fundamentally different from treating a national fund as an extension of the government’s annual budget.  The Bahamas does not have Norway’s oil wealth.  But we can learn from Norway’s discipline.

A national fund should be designed to outlive political administrations.  It should not be structured around the spending priorities of whichever party happens to hold office.

Because the government of today is temporary.  The assets belong to generations.

THE REAL DANGER IS POLITICAL CONTROL OF CAPITAL

This is where the discussion becomes more uncomfortable.  The greatest danger may not be the airport itself.  The greatest danger is the precedent.

Once politicians become accustomed to controlling large pools of national capital, there is a natural temptation to expand the number of things government believes it should finance, own, regulate or manage.  One project becomes another.  One fund becomes another.  One government enterprise becomes another.  One strategic investment becomes another.

And gradually, government becomes not simply the referee of the economy, but one of its biggest players.  That should concern us.

A healthy private economy needs government to establish the rules and enforce them fairly.  But government should not become the regulator, investor, employer, developer, lender, owner and allocator of opportunity all at the same time.

Because when government controls too many economic levers, political power can become economic power.  And that creates another problem:  political clientelism.

POLITICAL CLIENTELISM: WHEN GOVERNMENT BECOMES THE GATEKEEPER OF OPPORTUNITY

Political clientelism is the practice of exchanging targeted benefits—such as jobs, contracts, resources or other advantages—for political support.  It has been documented across developing democracies, including parts of Africa.

And the danger is not that elections disappear.  The danger is that elections remain while the economic system increasingly revolves around who controls the state.

The cycle becomes:  Win the election.  Control the government.  Control public resources.  Control appointments.  Control contracts.  Control licenses.  Distribute benefits.  Build political loyalty.  Then fight to remain in power.

That is not the kind of institutional democracy The Bahamas should aspire to.  Democracy should mean that a Bahamian can succeed regardless of which party is in office.

A business should win a contract because it is competitive.  An entrepreneur should succeed because the business works.  An investor should invest because the economic fundamentals make sense.  A citizen should not need political connections to navigate the economy.  Government should be the referee—not the prize.

AND THEN THERE IS REGULATION

This is where the Bahamas needs to be particularly careful.  Nobody is arguing for a lawless economy.

Good regulation is necessary.  We need financial regulation.  We need environmental protections.  We need consumer protection.  We need building standards.  We need proper oversight of businesses that pose genuine public risks.

The issue is not regulation itself.  The issue is regulation without discipline.  Because governments often look at regulations individually.

One new license doesn’t seem dangerous.  One new fee doesn’t seem dangerous.  One additional reporting requirement doesn’t seem dangerous.  One additional approval process doesn’t seem dangerous.  One new tax doesn’t seem dangerous.  One new government agency doesn’t seem dangerous.

But put them all together and the picture changes.  The entrepreneur doesn’t see ten harmless regulations.  The entrepreneur sees ten more reasons to think twice before investing.  And this is where The Bahamas could make a very serious mistake.

CAPITAL HAS OPTIONS

The Bahamas is not operating in a vacuum.  We compete with other Caribbean jurisdictions.  We compete with international financial centres.  We compete for tourists.  We compete for businesses.  We compete for investors.  We compete for entrepreneurs.

And capital is mobile.  An investor does not have to invest in The Bahamas.  A company does not have to establish its regional operation here.  An entrepreneur does not have to build a business here.  They have choices.

And if the cost of regulation, taxation, bureaucracy and compliance becomes too high relative to the return, investors can simply take their capital somewhere else.  They may never publicly complain.  They may never criticize the government.  They may simply say:  “Let’s invest somewhere else.”

That is the silent danger.  The country may not see businesses leaving in dramatic headlines.

It may simply see fewer businesses arriving.  Fewer startups.  Fewer investments.  Fewer expansions.  Fewer jobs.  Fewer opportunities.  And by the time policymakers recognize the problem, the damage can already be done.

IF GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO REGULATE EVERYTHING, PEOPLE WILL STOP WANTING TO DO BUSINESS HERE

This is the warning that policymakers need to hear.  If The Bahamas continues piling regulation, taxes, fees, licensing requirements and bureaucratic procedures onto businesses without constantly asking whether each measure is justified, we risk making the country less attractive as a place to do business.

Not because The Bahamas suddenly becomes a bad country.  Not because investors stop loving our beaches.

But because businesses ultimately make economic decisions.  They calculate costs.  They calculate risks.  They calculate returns.  They calculate uncertainty.  And then they choose where to put their money.

The Bahamas cannot assume that investors will stay simply because we are The Bahamas.  Investment is not sentimental.  Capital goes where the risk-adjusted opportunity makes sense.

That is why the objective should not be “no regulation.”  It should be smart regulation.  Regulate where there is a genuine public interest.  Eliminate regulations that no longer serve a purpose.

Digitize government services.  Set clear deadlines for approvals.  Reduce unnecessary paperwork.

Make fees transparent.  Prevent arbitrary enforcement.  Give businesses predictable rules.

And before introducing another regulation, ask one simple question:  What problem are we solving, and what will it cost the economy to solve it this way?  Because every regulation has a cost.

Sometimes the business pays.  Sometimes the consumer pays through higher prices.  Sometimes workers pay through fewer opportunities.  Sometimes investors pay by earning lower returns.  And sometimes the country pays because the investment never happens.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WANT MORE PRIVATE CAPITAL, NOT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

The irony is that The Bahamas needs investment.  We need investment in energy.  We need investment in infrastructure.  We need investment in housing.  We need investment in tourism.  We need investment in agriculture.  We need investment in technology.  We need investment in the Family Islands.  We need investment in small businesses.

But the answer cannot always be:  Government will finance it.  Government will own it.  Government will regulate it.  Government will manage it.

The private sector has capital.  The private sector has expertise.  The private sector can take risks that government should not.

And when government creates a predictable environment, private capital can multiply what the public sector is capable of doing.  Indeed, the Davis administration itself made this argument when it introduced the National Investment Funds legislation, saying that public-private partnerships could expand the number and scale of infrastructure projects while reducing the need for government to finance every project itself.  That principle is worth preserving.  The government should use its limited capital to catalyze private investment, not crowd it out.

THE TAXPAYER CANNOT ALWAYS BE THE ANSWER

The Bahamas already depends heavily on taxation to finance government.  And the IMF’s current assessment says additional revenue-enhancing measures and expenditure reforms may be needed to achieve the government’s medium-term debt target.  Those measures could include replacing the business-license fee with corporate income tax, introducing personal income tax, rationalizing tax exemptions, raising VAT and reducing transfers to state-owned enterprises.

Those are IMF recommendations, not laws that have necessarily been adopted.  But they demonstrate the dilemma.

When government spends more, someone ultimately has to pay.  If it isn’t the taxpayer today, it may be the taxpayer tomorrow.  If it isn’t the taxpayer, it may be the holder of government debt.  If it isn’t either, it may be the next generation through reduced fiscal space.

There is no such thing as free government money.  There is only money that comes from somewhere else.

THE BILL ALWAYS COMES DUE

That is why Adam Smith’s warning matters.  Debt can make government spending look painless.  The project is visible.  The ribbon is visible.  The press conference is visible.  The new building is visible.  The airport is visible.

The taxpayer’s future interest payments are not.  That is the political temptation of debt.  The benefit is immediate.  The cost is delayed.  And the people paying the ultimate bill may be people who never voted for the government that incurred it.

That is why fiscal responsibility is not simply an accounting exercise.  It is a moral obligation to future generations.

THE BAHAMIAN PEOPLE ARE THE OWNERS

This is the principle that must never be forgotten.  The government is not the owner of The Bahamas.  The government is the custodian.

The national assets belong to the Bahamian people.  The investment funds belong to the Bahamian people.  The natural resources belong to the Bahamian people.  The country’s future belongs to the Bahamian people.

Politicians are temporary.  The nation is permanent.

That means every government should be asking itself not:  “What can we spend?”

but:  “What can we build that will still benefit Bahamians 25, 50 or 100 years from now?”  That is the standard.

THE MOST DANGEROUS SENTENCE IN GOVERNMENT

Perhaps the most dangerous sentence in public finance is:  “We have the money.”

The correct question is:  “Should we spend it?”

And the question after that should be:  “What is the opportunity cost?”  Could the money earn a return?  Could it reduce debt?  Could it strengthen reserves?  Could it attract private capital?  Could it protect the country from the next crisis?  Could it generate wealth for future generations?  Those are the questions of serious government.

Not simply:  Can we do it?

But:

Should we do it?

THE BAHAMAS NEEDS A FISCAL CULTURE

We cannot build a strong country simply by passing another budget.  We need a culture of fiscal responsibility.  We need stronger institutions.  We need independent oversight.  We need transparency.  We need professional investment management.  We need clear rules for national funds.  We need proper assessments of public-private partnerships.  We need serious scrutiny of state-owned enterprises.  We need regulatory reform.  We need to make it easier—not harder—for legitimate businesses to operate.  And we need governments that understand that restraint is sometimes more valuable than spending.

Anybody can spend money.  Anybody can borrow.  Anybody can announce a project.  Anybody can cut a ribbon.

Leadership is knowing when to say: No.  No, we cannot afford it.  No, the return isn’t high enough.  No, the government shouldn’t own it.  No, the private sector can do it.  No, we shouldn’t borrow for it.  No, we shouldn’t raid national capital for short-term political gratification.  No, another regulation isn’t justified.  No, another tax isn’t the answer.  No, the government does not need to control everything.  That is fiscal discipline.

THE BAHAMAS WILL OUTLIVE EVERY GOVERNMENT

The Progressive Liberal Party will not govern forever.  The Free National Movement will not govern forever.  No prime minister will govern forever.  No cabinet will remain forever.

But the Bahamas will.  The national debt will remain.  The national assets will remain.

The consequences of today’s decisions will remain.  That is why every administration has a responsibility to leave the country stronger than it found it.

Not simply more buildings.  Not simply more programs.  Not simply more government.

Stronger institutions.  A more competitive private sector.  Lower fiscal vulnerability.  Greater national wealth.  More opportunity.  And a government that understands the difference between owning power and exercising responsibility.

THE CHOICE IS BIGGER THAN ONE GOVERNMENT

This argument is not ultimately about the Davis administration alone.  It is about the kind of political system The Bahamas wants to become.

Do we want a country where government increasingly becomes the centre of economic life?  Or do we want a country where government creates the conditions for citizens and businesses to flourish independently?  Do we want national investment funds governed by long-term investment principles?  Or do we want political administrations to have increasing discretion over national capital?

Do we want regulation that protects the public while allowing businesses to breathe?  Or do we want a bureaucracy so complicated that entrepreneurs eventually decide that it is easier to invest somewhere else?

Do we want future generations to inherit assets?

Or obligations?

These are not partisan questions.  They are questions about the future of the Bahamas.

Because there is a simple truth that every government should remember:  The country is not its treasury.  The treasury is not the government’s personal bank account.  And winning an election does not give anyone ownership of the Bahamas.

The government is only the custodian.  And a custodian has one fundamental responsibility:  Leave the house standing.  Not just for the people living in it today—but for the children who will inherit it tomorrow.

The Bahamas does not need governments that simply know how to spend.  It needs governments that know how to preserve, invest, build, regulate wisely and say no.  Because once national capital is consumed, it cannot be spent twice.  Once an investor decides to go somewhere else, that investment may never return.  Once a business closes because the regulatory burden becomes unbearable, the jobs disappear with it.  And once a generation inherits a mountain of debt, no political speech can make the obligation disappear.

The bill always comes due.  The only question is:  Who will be left to pay it?

Source / Comment

Serious Questions and Concerns about the National Investment Fund (NIF) of The Bahamas

Nassau, The Bahamas: Was there LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by Bahamian law

By Marlon Johnson

The REAL Critical Question:

The question here is not what the money was spent on.

There already exist mechanisms for government to invest in roads and court houses etc - those things for which the Minister indicated that the lion's share of the money was used .

We have been doing that as a country for decades and decades now through the established budgetary and treasury mechanisms.

The question is whether or not there was LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by law.  No account has been set up by the NIF and no approvals have been granted by the NIF.

Because if there is no lawful authority, then why exactly would the government be doing this?  What would be the legitimate reason when the government could use the established budgetary and treasury processes to facilitate the roads, courthouses, and airports?

And if we can all just ignore the laws when it is convenient to do so, then why do the laws exist in the first place?

Source / Comment

The Caribbean is not ready for Artificial Intelligence (AI)

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26: Re: WE CARIBBEANS ARE NOT READY FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!

By Professor Gilbert Morris

In our typical fashion in the Caribbean everyone has a strong uninformed opinion about something we don’t make… and despite those strong opinions… the best we can do is say “AI is coming”, “we need to be ready”, “we must gain AI skills” then when foreigners and the manufacturers of AI retreat in fear - as they are doing now - we come with further empty phrases, like “we need to be careful with AI”.

Be careful how with something we don’t make, that we’re forced to use without knowing it… and which - because we like shiny foreign things - steals our data and life processes for sale beyond the reach of our debt ridden systems, stuck in the plantation modes we never reforms or changed?

AI is none of our business!

Before we go tongue galavanting through the usual empty talk and cliches, let’s at least try to grasp what’s actually happening to us:

1. We have been the first guinea pigs for AI since its inception.  Do you really think American Airlines or Mastercard or Amazon would waste money paying employees to service us?

No: automated systems have been used for decades because - we love foreign peoples things - we never reformed our economic and social systems toward innovation… and so… we depend on their systems and can’t complain when those systems fail us.  Therefore, our first line of of contact with automated systems forced us to conform to the system, rather than the system being cultivated around our needs.

Now today, these automated systems are digital with the same effects; except now, it collects our data: drive a Tesla…  that’s a data collection device; have Starlink…  that’s a data collection device; have Alexa…that’s a data collection device; your mobile and iPads…data collection devices.

In Europe, Singapore and South Korea, they have systems, methods and rules to prevent their people depending on foreign digital systems.  China built a separate internet space with no Facebook, Amazon, Google, TikTok or Instagram.  Everything is Chinese.  People live in the Chinese WeChat system and no one collects your data for sale.

So what do you think AI would bring to us that’s new?

Nothing!

EXCEPT: it would collect more of your data and manipulate you into sharing more, until nearly all the country’s data is held externally… biometrics, click-patterns, finance and payments, all your texts, emails and photographs…  all held abroad…  but analysed and massaged to determine how to turn you into a product.

What's the point of telling people in that condition…  don’t get left behind by AI?  It’s nonsense of the first water and reveals a cluelessness that’s astounding.

In 1997, as a professor at George Mason University, I won the “Technology Across the Curriculum Award” for doing something no one else did: everyone tried to determined how technology could be used in the classroom.  I tried to show how technology would eliminate the Univeristy itself…  by running dozens of simulations…  long before AI existed.  What I saw for the university, one can see now for small states.

So what can we do?

We make nothing…  we’re broke…  we have the wrong concept of technology since technology is just jewellery to us; we are just users…!

1. We must build a “digital wall” around our country as Estonia and China have done.  Without this, we are just lunch meat for tech companies.

2. Once we build that digital wall, we must develop a new biometric based alpha numeric identity and kill off all previous identification numbers.

3. Now following 1-2 above, (there are some constitutional issues to consider), we would have cut off foreign tech, service and credit card companies from our new IDs!

4. We must allow no foreign companies and no technologies inside that digital wall!

So how do we communicate with the outside world?

We develop interoperability protocols, permissioned APIs and QR code access that transmits our black-boxed identities without revealing the root biometrics.  That means when you buy on Amazon or pay a credit card bill or a school fee or buy an airline ticket, an external code is generated that keeps your unique ID code protected.

Every Caribbean nation must adopt this model over the next three years.

Where does AI fit into all this?

Well, even with your “genetic code” outside the digital wall, foreigners will use AI, but we’ll be protected.

Inside the national digital wall, we can us AI for work flow management, for research, for data analysis, but these would not be connected to the world beyond our digital wall.

Don’t see how this streamlined thinking because now we know we must train 10,000 cyber security professional across the region and place them where?

ON THE DIGITAL WALL!

This is the only sovereign or independent future available for us and we are late and not a single CARICOM nation has the right combination of people or programmes to make this a reality.  Not a single country is managing this directly from the leader’s office as a national priority the failure of which risk national catastrophe.

Not one!

CARICOM has no 24/7 initiative aimed to driving the region with a second CARICOM digital wall as a second tier of strategic protection of its member states.

We blundered our independence when we failed to reform the systems we inherited.  Digitalisation is an even more critical moment; will we rise to the occasion or babble along trying to appear knowledge about what we can’t make?

Source / Comment