Legal gambling versus illegal gambling in The Bahamas

The Bahamian gambling saga

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

The election season is well in full force in The Bahamas.  All of the major political parties have cranked up their machinery and politicians are making their presence felt on the talk show circuit.  No one would argue that crime and the economy are two of the biggest concerns on the electorate’s mind as we move toward the 2012 general election.  However, politicians should not make the mistake of campaigning on these issues alone.  The Bahamian electorate want answers and proposed policies on a multitude of issues including immigration, exploration of natural resources for economic benefit and future plans to address our failing education system.  One of the issues that the next government of The Bahamas must confront is the more than half a century topic of gambling by Bahamians in The Bahamas.

Gambling no doubt is one of the most controversial topics of discussion in The Bahamas.  There are many proponents and critics.  It remains uncertain, however, what percentage of the Bahamian population is for or against legalizing gambling by Bahamians.  The reality is that we as a nation continue to go round and round in circles on this matter, while thousands of Bahamians patronize the multitude of what are commonly referred to as ‘number houses’ in The Bahamas.

The arguments

An argument against the legalization is that it will bring with it a myriad of social issues that are opposed to Christian values and will cause a decadence in Bahamian society.  While it is accepted among some that gambling may not be an outright sin in the Bible, gambling done in excess is sinful.

Others opposed to the legalization of gambling have put forth an economic argument claiming that gambling is an open form of regressive taxation that will affect those of the lower income brackets more than those of the middle and upper class.  As a result, those of the lower income class will fail to take care of their financial obligations at home such as paying necessary bills and caring for their families.  A perception exists that individuals below the poverty line gamble more than persons who are not poor.  However, studies in America suggest that the reverse is true as it was found that more persons of the middle class played the lottery as opposed to those of the lower income class.

Proponents of legalizing gambling assert that government cannot legislate morality.  Further, proponents claim that there are many potential benefits including an increase in government revenue which can contribute toward charitable purposes, infrastructure and most notably education.  Advocates of the legalization of gambling also argue that it is another legitimate source of income for a government that has limited ability to increase its revenue intake.  Although this argument has been successful in persuading a lot of Americans to vote in favor of a national lottery, it was found that the eventual revenue was not utilized in the manner that many had hoped for.  For instance, the additional revenue from the lottery did in fact go towards education; however, many states reduced or offset the allocation to the educational budget against revenue received from the lottery.  Hence, the education budget was not increased overall but education was merely funded by another source of revenue.  To remedy this effect, a few states in America have passed legislation to ensure that a certain percentage of revenue received from the lottery is allocated for the specific purpose of education.  This ensures that the funds are used for the purpose intended on the one hand, and on the other hand it ensures that the states do not decrease their allocation to education.

The greatest issue with gambling in The Bahamas is the fact that there is much hypocrisy surrounding the point.  Several decades ago, the government of the day approved policy for hoteliers and casino operators to provide gambling services, however casino gambling and ‘playing numbers’ was outlawed for Bahamians.  It is interesting to note that civic organizations, churches and schools still have the ability to distribute raffle tickets as a major fundraiser.  However, provisions have been made for such activities under the Gaming and Lotteries Act.  Over the years, law enforcers have conducted random raids of ‘number house’ establishments in an attempt to discourage the practice of gambling by Bahamians otherwise called ‘buying and selling numbers’.  However, the truth of the matter is that neither the government nor the law enforcers have done an adequate job ‘shutting down’ the number houses.

There is widespread hypocrisy in that the government allows foreign investors to enter the country and provide amenities for casino gambling for their guests, but Bahamians though guests of these hotels quite often are unable to utilize these gambling facilities.  It is unclear whether the operators of ‘number houses’ want gambling by Bahamians legalized.  Any potential legalization will certainly decrease their profits, reduce market share and relinquish their current control to a government authority.  Liberalization of the gambling market will foster competition and encourage the entrance of more competitors.  Hoteliers and casino operators may not prefer any gambling policy that allows Bahamians to gamble not because of a threat to their market share, but because it will provide Bahamians with the licence to enter these establishments and patronize all the amenities just as the foreign tourists and non-residents do.  Arguably, hoteliers and casino operators may not find such a policy good for their businesses.

It appears that there are arguably many special interests who prefer to keep the status quo.  However, maintenance of the current state of affairs will increase hypocrisy and anarchy among Bahamians.  It is advisable for the next government of The Bahamas to ascertain the gambling appetite of the Bahamian population and propose a referendum on the matter.  We must take a “what is good for the goose is good for the gander approach”.

Legal gambling in The Bahamas should benefit both Bahamians and non-residents alike.  The same is true for illegal gambling; neither Bahamians nor non-residents should benefit.  If Bahamians agree to legalize gambling, it follows that the government must take the necessary steps to comply with the wishes of the people.  However, if the overwhelming response is to keep gambling by Bahamians illegal, the government and relevant government agencies must enforce the law and uphold the provisions of the Gaming and Lotteries Act.  This is the essence of democracy – a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

 

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

Mar 01, 2012

thenassauguardian

The Bahamas: ...The defining outline of the 2012 general election is clear... ...In making their choices of party and leader, voters will assess and compare the records of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and its leader, Perry Christie, from 2002 to 2007 and that of the Free National Movement (FNM) and its leader, Hubert Ingraham, from 2007 to 2012. This comparison and assessment will serve as the basis for who voters believe may best lead the country for the next five years

The so-called silly season

Front Porch

By Simon

The term silly season is often used to describe the lead-up to a general election and the ensuing election campaign.   It is a favorite of some journalists who apply it dismissively in discounting what they view as boilerplate rhetoric from politicians.

Unsurprisingly, the term has a history, obscured by its indiscriminate application by the self-same journalists who wield it to chide and caricature the political class.

Originally, the silly season referred to the period of the late summer when news was scarce.   In response to this slow period, newspapers utilized attention-getting headlines and graphics, and printed exaggerated stories on frivolous and “silly” topics to boost circulation and advertising.

Silly seasons are a human phenomenon and not the provenance of any professional group, be they politicians or members of the press and media personalities.

There is a group of celebrity journalists who work in the print and broadcast media and also play pundit on talk shows.   Some of these media figures look in the mirror and beam: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the best journalist of them all?”

Perhaps more editors, producers and senior journalists may look in that proverbial mirror and ask how they can more comprehensively, intelligently and creatively cover the 2012 election cycle.

Secret

The little secret many journalists won’t admit to publicly is that they enjoy the entertaining elements of politics and general elections as much as their readers and viewers.   Good for them.   Still, they have an obligation to inform and educate the public beyond what is said by the speakers at various political events.

The defining outline of the 2012 general election is clear.   In making their choices of party and leader, voters will assess and compare the records of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and its leader, Perry Christie, from 2002 to 2007 and that of the Free National Movement (FNM) and its leader, Hubert Ingraham, from 2007 to 2012.   This comparison and assessment will serve as the basis for who voters believe may best lead the country for the next five years.

It is essential for journalists to be objective.  In the interest of objectivity many journalists operate under the rubric of “fair and balanced”, an important principle.   Still, it is a principle with a goal in mind, namely to get to the facts.

The misapplication of the notion of fair and balanced has been lampooned by the fictional example of a television anchor promoting a news segment.  The segment includes a politician who believes that the earth is round.   Of course, in the interest of fairness and balance, there will be a politician who believes that the earth is flat.

The veteran and now deceased American political journalist Tim Russert served for 16 years as the moderator of the highly-respected NBC Sunday morning news program, “Meet the Press”.

Russert was legendary for being generally “fair and balanced”.   He was respected by Republicans, Democrats and independents, liberals, moderates and conservatives.

His “Meet the Press” table was a must-stop for those who sought and won the presidential nominations of their respective parties.  Presidential aspirants, powerful Congressional leaders, governors, Cabinet secretaries and business moguls were interrogated by Russert.

Getting through a Russert interview without a major fumble was a badge of honor.   Before going on “Meet the Press”, interviewees did serious preparation, which often included mock interviews and combing through briefing books.

Tim Russert’s method was as simple as it was compelling.   He did his research and held politicians accountable for their words.  The Russert method was simply good journalism.  Perhaps the media can better employ such journalistic methods during this election cycle.

Promises

As a start, one of the dailies may consider making a master list of the promises made by the PLP and the FNM in their election manifestos and speeches from the throne, and see how well or poorly they kept their promises.

The period in question for the PLP would be 2002 to 2007 and for the FNM, the period from 2007 to 2012.   The reporting would simply hold each party accountable for their own words.   This would be of considerable service to voters who do not have the time to do such research.

The press may also hold political leaders accountable for their new promises.   For example, Ingraham has promised to expand the National Prescription Drug Benefit.  A newspaper like The Nassau Guardian may ask how much such an expansion would cost.   Similarly, Leader of the Opposition Perry Christie may be asked how he will pay for his promise to double the national budget for education.

This is the kind of good research journalism that is sorely lacking.   Quite often nowadays, many editors and reporters are so caught up in getting the juiciest headlines that they fail to do the important research pieces that are necessary, and sometimes they miss important aspects of a story.

This journal has done work of this nature in reporting on how MPs spent their constituency allowances.   More such work would be welcome and a good way to improve the quality of political journalism in the country.

 

Feb 21, 2012

thenassauguardian

Big Money and Politics in The Bahamas

Big Money and Politics

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Nassau, The Bahamas



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

This is most unfortunate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth of the matter is that money does talk.

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

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

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

The picture is obviously more complex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 28th, 2011

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Bahamas Blog International