The Oil Drilling Referendum in The Bahamas ...and Pontius Pilate

No Referendum For Oil Drilling


Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas

ALREADY they are discussing how to share the oil wealth, even before the first vein of oil has been discovered to make the discussion relevant.

 

In our opinion politicians are putting the cart before the horse or, as the farm hand would say, “counting their chicks before they are hatched.”

 

What they should be giving serious thought to is whether they should even be playing russian roulette with the future of these islands, whose wealth lies in the extraordinary beauty of its waters, powder soft beaches and colourful marine life. One slip of the drill and our future is gone forever.

 

Already, the livelihood of our fishermen are threatened with the overfishing of the conch, and the threat of a US ban on its importation as a food delicacy to save the species from extinction. Now enters King Oil with its offshore rigs which could further pollute — despite safety precautions — the natural habitat of the conch.

 

We need only one slip — equipment failure, staff error, a hurricane — and the purity and beauty of our shallow seas are gone forever.

 

As pointed out in the book Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, the “main hazard is connected with the spills and blowouts of oil, gas, and numerous other chemical substances and compounds.

 

“The environmental consequences of accidental episodes are especially severe, sometimes dramatic, when they happen near the shore, in shallow waters, or in areas with slow water circulation.”

 

Offshore rigs, said another report, “can dump tons of drilling fluid, metal cutting, including toxic metals, such as lead chromium and mercury, as well as carcinogens, such as benzene, into the ocean.” And yet another report claims that “exploration for offshore oil involves firing air guns which send a strong shock across the seabed that can decrease fish catch, damage the hearing capacity of various marine species and may lead to marine mammal strandings.” It is claimed that “drilling activity around oil rigs is suspected of contributing to elevated levels of mercury in Gulf of Mexico fish.”

 

The big oil companies will extol the benefits of oil drilling, the elaborate safety measures taken around the wells, until the big blow comes and then they are in such a state of confusion that their tongues are tied to find an explanation of what went wrong. In 2010 the world watched in horror the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. As the thick oil spread south, even the Bahamas trembled. The talk then was who would our government hold responsible to clean up the mess that Bahamians feared might touch our shores. Fortunately the Bahamas was spared.

 

But in that disaster 11 workers were killed and more than three million gallons of crude oil poured into the Gulf.

 

Don’t say that it can’t happen here. It can happen here and this is where it is most likely to happen because, as we know in the Bahamas no one observes the rules for long, and security will soon slip.

A news report recently suggested that the Gulf accident happened because the US interior department “exercised lax oversight in approving BP’s operations in the Gulf, accepting too readily the company’s claims that there was little risk of an accident.”

 

It is almost obscene to think that the politicians are discussing the financial returns before investigating whether the dangers are too great for us to subject our fragile tourist economy to the oil consortiums.

 

As for a referendum. This is one problem that should not be put to a referendum. All Bahamians will see is the possibility of quick wealth — as in the drug peddling years — they will not even consider the possibility of these islands being covered in thick tar — off limits to everybody.

 

When Bahamians went to the polls on May 7th they elected Perry Gladstone Christie as prime minister, not Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands and walked away from the problem. Rather than leaving such a weighty problem to voters, who do not have access to the necessary information, it is for MPs to study the pros and cons, the benefits and the dangers, and with a vote of the Assembly, where they represent the people, make a rational and considered decision. If they are incapable of doing that then call it quits, go back to the people and give them a second chance to find someone willing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

This is not a vote for a referendum. This is a vote for members of parliament — all of them.

 

September 13, 2012

 

Tribune 242

The political parties seeking employment as the next government of The Bahamas should note that the increasingly informed Bahamian electorate demands details of their proposed monetary, fiscal and macroeconomic policies ...before they cast their votes for them... The stakes are too high to entertain politics as usual in The Bahamas

Another general election without substance?

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

thenassauguardian

Nassau, The Bahamas

Now that the election bell has been rung and the anticipated date for the election is scheduled for May 7, 2012, one can’t help but wonder what lies ahead for the Bahamian people during the next government’s term of office from 2012 to 2017.

It is now officially four weeks prior to the election date and we have yet to receive a single manifesto from any of the political parties vying for the top spot in governance.  The opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is running a campaign primarily based upon improving the economy, job creation and crime reduction and has released literature to that effect.  The newly formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has based its campaign on “real change” and being a viable alternative to the established parties outlining its proposals on certain issues such as the economy, crime and illegal immigration.  As anticipated, the governing Free National Movement (FNM) is running a campaign based upon leadership, delivery on its promises and its ability to manage the economy in the midst of the global economic crisis.

 

The economic situation

Nationwide commentary suggests that Bahamians are concerned about both microeconomic and macroeconomic issues affecting their lives.  From a microeconomic standpoint, they are concerned about the government’s inability to create permanent jobs, improve education and ensure that they are able to maintain a decent standard of living.  The issue of home ownership and the deepening mortgage crisis remains of utmost concern to the middle and working classes of the electorate.  It is also an understatement to emphasize that the electorate abhors the reality that in 21st century Bahamas.  Widespread job opportunities are still restricted to the tourism and financial services sectors or the civil service.

On the macro-economic front, there is widespread uneasiness about the rising government debt level in the face of reduced government revenue; a U.S. economy that is slowly recovering; high food and fuel prices; and corresponding increases in the inflation and unemployment rates that are believed to have a high correlation to the high crime rate.  In the past five years, unemployment has doubled to more than 15 percent; the national debt has doubled to more than $4 billion; and crime, including the heinous crime of murder, evidence a fast-paced upward trend with approximately 500 murder victims to date.

While it is true that governments across the world, including developed nations, were faced with some of the challenges outlined above, it has been reported that the Bahamian government had at its advantage several investment projects left on the table by the former Christie administration that had the potential to create additional jobs.  The PLP opposition has reiterated this point and accused the government of what it termed as the “stop, review and cancel” policy which it argues expedited the recession in The Bahamas.

We will never know the true impact that these projects would have had if they had come to fruition.  What is clear is that the government lacked a clear and prudent fiscal, monetary or economic policy that would have guided us through this recession with minimal casualties of unemployment, crime and home foreclosures.

The FNM, which is traditionally considered to be both politically and fiscally conservative in contrast to the PLP’s social and liberal approach to politics and fiscal management, has done very little to distinguish itself in this current term of office from the manner in which it is perceived a PLP government would govern.

The introduction of the prescription drug program and unemployment benefits, which would traditionally be seen as PLP policies, are necessary safety nets that all progressive governments should implement.  However, due to the regressive tax structure in The Bahamas, low to middle income earners bore the brunt of the implementation of these initiatives through increased taxes in the midst of an already challenging economic climate.

 

Where are the ideas?

It is rather unfortunate that in spite of the lessons supposedly learned during the financial crisis and with the election date fast approaching, all the political parties have not provided to the Bahamian people a comprehensive action plan to address the pressing issues facing our dear nation.  Rather, we seem to be headed to another election season in which silliness and petty issues are magnified.  I submit that what is lacking in The Bahamas today is not intellectual capacity or a shortage of innovative ideas, but rather our leaders do not have the political will to implement policies that will move the country forward.

The Bahamian electorate has become weary of campaigns without substance which fail to expressly articulate in clear terms how the country will be put back on the right track.  Political parties will do well in unequivocally committing to tax reform, economic diversification, reducing the budget deficit and national debt in the interest of future generations by producing a viable plan as documented in their respective manifestos.  A commitment in this regard will ensure in the long run economic stability, growth and development.

In the absence of manifestos to date, it is without a doubt that the build-up to this year’s general election will lack the necessary substance to foster sensible debates on pertinent issues and ensure effective scrutiny of the next government.  Politicians should be advised that the old tricks of sheer rhetoric and glorified baloney will no longer satisfy a people that desire more for our Bahamaland. The political parties seeking employment as the next government of The Bahamas should note that the increasingly informed electorate demand details of their proposed monetary, fiscal and macroeconomic policies before they cast their votes for them.  The stakes are too high to entertain politics as usual.

 

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

Apr 12, 2012

thenassauguardian

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

Money and Bahamian politics: What role will money play in The Bahamas’ 2012 general election

Money and politics

By Ian G. Strachan
Nassau, The Bahamas

What role will money play in The Bahamas’ 2012 general election?  Does the party with the most money always win Bahamian elections?  That is the feeling of many observers.  Money will be spent, of course.  Lots of it.  But we will have absolutely no idea where this money comes from.  And that is the way Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie want it.

Is the U.S. government, through some company, funding one political party over the other in our election?  Is the Chinese government bankrolling a party’s election campaign?  Which Lyford Cay residents are backing political campaigns and which campaigns?  Which private businessmen, Bahamian or expatriate, are making campaign contributions, and how much?  Are numbers houses backing candidates?  Drug lords?  Which lawyers are ‘borrowing’ money from their local and international clients to finance political campaigns?  And what will all this mean in terms of the new government’s choices when in office?  How will we, the citizens ever know, truly know, how the decisions regarding our tax dollars, present and future, are being made and the extent to which campaign contributors are shaping those decisions?

 

The issue in other countries

Ronald Sanders, in a piece called “Caribbean electorates: Not for sale”, wrote recently that, “General elections in St. Lucia and Guyana on November 28 have raised serious questions about the financing of campaigns and the unfair use of state resources by governing political parties to gain an advantage over their opponents.  In St. Lucia, it is alleged that a significant portion of the United Workers Party (UWP) campaign funds came from Taiwan.  The UWP was the ruling party at the time of the elections and the then leader of the opposition and leader of the St. Lucia Labour Party (SLP), Kenny Anthony, had engaged in a public row with the Taiwanese Ambassador over his blatant interference in the electoral politics of the island.  In Guyana, it is claimed that the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) outspent its three rivals by a sizeable margin in the elections campaign.”

Interestingly, in a 2010 case called Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling that essentially repealed mechanisms that had been put in place by the U.S. Congress and Senate to control the power of big money to shape U.S. elections, via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 among others.  Even with those laws in place, the 2008 election of Barack Obama had been the most expensive in U.S. history.  Obama’s campaign budget alone was three-quarters of a billion dollars.  The figure is likely to reach a billion in 2012.

The Citizens United ruling, which passed on a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, states that it is unconstitutional to deny corporations and unions the right to the First Amendment, or “free speech”, which includes the right to fund political campaign ads.  This essentially treats corporations as people.

Former President Jimmy Carter called the ruling “one of the stupidest rulings ever consummated or perpetrated on the American people”.  In an interview with Tavis Smiley in 2010, he went on to say, “It is a complete transformation or change of what our country has done ever since it was founded.  That is, to try to put some restraint on the massive infusion of money into the political campaign.  And also to have those who do make the contributions legally identified.  You can make it in secret now... When I ran against Gerald Ford in 1976, he and I used public money.  We used a $2 per person check off.  $26 million total.  And when I ran against Ronald Reagan four years later (1980), we did the same thing.”

President Barack Obama himself has been highly critical of the ruling, calling it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans”.

Obama said further, “They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who’s actually paying for the ads.  Instead, a group can hide behind a name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future’, even if a more accurate name would be ‘Companies for Weaker Oversight’.  These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.

“Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians.  Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign.  And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads.”

The reality, however, is that despite receiving over 60 percent of his campaign funding from people who gave less than $1,000 each, Obama could not have won the 2008 election if not for “the tens of millions that lobbyists, PACs, corporations, Wall Street, and labor unions shove into a presidential candidate’s campaign coffers”.  This is according to political analyst Earl Hutchinson, who concludes that “the bitter reality [is] that politics is a hard, dirty, cash-soaked game, and those with the most cash will always have the edge.”

 

A system open to abuse

No less than in the U.S., our politicians and our Parliament are bought and sold.  We are not allowed to know who is doing the buying, but we know who is doing the selling.

The perverting power of money doesn’t end with general elections.  Many, as our prime minister recently admitted (with tongue in cheek, I can only assume), are entering politics as a means of economic advancement.

“It is sad to see that we have moved to a place in our history when many who seek to offer themselves for election to the House are motivated by the desire to achieve personal success and not by a dedication of service to others – that is the general public," he said.

The fact is that the corrupt culture of our politics makes it very difficult for a politician to do otherwise.  The people ‘shake down’ the representative at every opportunity.   He/she is expected to be financial godfather for all his/her supporters and even for those who didn’t give support, not just in order to get elected, but throughout his/her term in office.  This burden cannot possibly be sustained by an MP’s salary; particularly an MP with his/her own children to house, feed and educate.  This opens the door to the temptation: MPs seek to repay themselves through unofficial means sometimes just to avoid bankruptcy.  Even MPs who were financially successful before being elected run the risk of suffering financially when in office because their pay is miniscule when compared to what they made in private life.  Accustomed to a certain standard of living and somewhat embittered by the constant begging of constituents, some politicians find ways to feather their nests by personally profiting from the awarding of contracts, etc.  That is to say nothing of the men and women who conclude that there is no way for them to attain the lifestyle they desire period – unless they enter politics as a career and make it their business to take advantage of the largesse of the state.

Michael Parenti, noted American author of the book “Democracy for the Few”, asserts that “to curb the power of the moneyed interests and lobbyists, minor-party as well as major-party candidates should be provided with public financing.  In addition, a strict cap should be placed on campaign spending by all candidates and supporters, with no loopholes allowed”.

Politicians can feel insulted; corporations and lobbyists may label it undemocratic, but transparency is the best safeguard of democracy that we can have.

Still other politicians have made so many enemies that they must ensure they are financially ‘set for life’ because their enemies, once in power, will make sure that neither they, nor their children, nor their children’s children will ever enjoy a single opportunity.

We know it’s happening but we can’t find the evidence very easily.  The Public Disclosure Act of 1976 isn’t worth the paper it was written on.

Obviously this situation cries out for reform.  The problem is the people who suffer most from this state of affairs (the general public) don’t understand that they suffer.  They pay for this corruption in ways they don’t understand.  In ways that far outweigh the measly bribes they are able to squeeze out of their elected representatives at election time and on the rare occasions they catch them on the street.  Without enlightened leadership, the system will go on perpetuating itself.

 

• IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor of English at The College of The Bahamas. You can write him at: strachantalk@gmail.com

Dec 19, 2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas: ...the Bahamian democratic experience and the rationale underpinning parliamentary democracy in The Islands

Celebrating the Bahamian democratic experience

Front Porch

By Simon

Nassau, The Bahamas

Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas - Some of the frustrations with our political life are understandable, many of which are shared by those in frontline politics who daily manage the complex matters of state with which most of us would prefer not to contend.

Parliamentary debates are sometimes sterile and unimaginative.  The lack of preparation by some parliamentarians is an embarrassment for themselves and those they represent.

Yet, we need to place our frustrations within context, historically and geographically.   Familiarity often breeds contempt.  Yet, it is unfamiliarity with our parliamentary system that has bred contempt for the institutions and practices that provide for democratic stability.

Many in academia and journalism, and even in Parliament, are woefully ill-informed about the fundamentals of our parliamentary system.   There is a great deal of erroneous information transmitted by these opinion leaders.

The lack of knowledge by those who should know better by virtue of their profession helps to fuel the pining for certain elements of the American system of government despite the lack of in-depth familiarity with why that system was developed and how it functions.

This unfamiliarity has spawned wistfulness for a system that even some of its founders may have come to believe is in need of significant reform in light of a different America today than at its founding.

Filibuster

The accretion of powers within the United States Senate which allows a single senator to place lengthy holds on or filibuster certain legislation are profoundly undemocratic practices in what is often self-servingly called the world’s greatest deliberative body.

The American founders might also be horrified by the army of corporate lobbyists who have been adept at finagling gigantic tax loopholes, outsized subsidies, lax regulation and wink and nod legislation.  This system has cost America trillions at the expense of social protections such as an infant mortality rate of which the world’s greatest power should be embarrassed.

Both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government refused despite warnings to provide oversight – including legislation – that would have regulated OTC derivatives and other fanciful financial instruments.   This historic failure helped to ignite a global economic meltdown, crippling the housing market, life savings and prospects for millions in the middle class in the U.S. alone.

Most of those who helped create this disaster escaped responsibility.   It is baffling when so-called progressives at home call for the adoption of a more America-styled system supposedly to check the abuses of power.  Politicians do not have a monopoly on such abuse.   Unchecked financial interests are also toxic to the political system.

If America is the prime model for those Bahamians who want a reformed political system based on that model, they have some explaining to do in light of the failures of that country’s political system.

Despite the common misperception, ours is really not a Westminster system of government.   We have a written constitution which Britain does not, and a number of the customs and traditions used in the much larger British parliamentary system are not germane to and are unworkable in our context.   With a 650-member House of Commons compared to our 41-member House of Assembly, our practice of parliamentary democracy is necessarily different.

However, our system is derived from the British parliamentary tradition which has enjoyed significant success including stability and resourcefulness over many centuries.   With not even a half a century of majority rule we are still familiarizing ourselves with our parliamentary system and democratic politics.

The Bahamian system

Still, we have done quite well as a democracy since 1967.   In rapid succession we produced a number of firsts having thrown the major parties out of office after 25 then 10 then five years.   We have done so including surviving two elections with questionable results – 1962 and 1987 – with little to no violence.

Our system is resilient, anchored in a constitutional framework and a rule of law stronger than the personalities and parties who may hold legislative and executive power for a period.   We often confuse the current occupants of high office with the actual nature and powers inherent in those offices.

Some of this confusion takes the form of asking whether the prime minister has too much power as granted by the constitution.   Interestingly, this school of thought gains currency when more powerful leaders are in office such as Sir Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham.  This was much less a concern during the weaker prime ministership of Perry Christie.

Curiously, many of those who have advanced this line of thinking while in opposition did not act on their convictions during their time in government.

The question about the prime minister’s power is a part of a larger question about the scope and nature of the powers granted to officeholders, particularly in the executive and legislative spheres.   It is often discussed in the language of the balance of power and checks and balances.

Our constitution provides numerous checks such as the provision that executive authority is held by the cabinet of The Bahamas, not singularly by the prime minister, a fact that seems to escape many commentators.   It also provides for the removal of a prime minister by his parliamentary colleagues.

All democratic systems wrestle with how much power to afford elected leaders, balancing sufficient power to get things done with checks on those powers to limit potential abuse.  That singular democratic impulse borne from the experience of time and various places has given rise to varying systems such as those of Britain and the U.S.

Before being mesmerized by the supposed greater genius of the American political enterprise, more of us may well examine the Bahamian democratic experience and the rationale underpinning parliamentary democracy.   Then we may more fully appreciate the genius of our system, which, while always in need of reform, has gotten the essentials right and offers more flexibility and built-in resources of which many remain blissfully ignorant and blithely uninformed.

Nov 08, 2011

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

thenassauguardian