Obeah and politics in the Caribbean

By Oliver Mills



We as human beings, when faced with challenging situations, often like to resort to measures and practices that are beyond what is normal in order to seek, or find solutions to them. After we have exhausted the religious figure, friends, and stretch ourselves beyond our own reasoning, we then resort to strategies that appear otherworldly.

From the era of the Roman Empire, before going to war, the leaders often consulted oracles, soothsayers, and their gods to determine when they should act. After being given the assurance that things will work out fine, they proceeded. If told there would be adversities, they would refrain.

The Romans also examined the entrails of birds to determine how and when to act. Sorcerers were often consulted in earlier times, and magic was also used to find solutions, or determine when to make a move or not.

Caribbean people have had their full share of using extraordinary sources to tell the future, protect themselves against what they felt were overwhelming odds, and also used these sources to seek revenge, without coming into physical contact with what caused their problems. We call the use of certain forces of nature to bring about certain ends beneficial to ourselves, or to deal with what or who was bothering us, obeah. But what is meant by this term obeah?

The Oxford Dictionary describes obeah as a kind of sorcery, practiced especially in the Caribbean. Another dictionary defines it as a form of magic or witchcraft, and mentions its association with the wider Caribbean. Obeah includes all of these, but more broadly, it has to do with influencing, or manipulating the forces of nature to obtain a particular result, either favourable to the person involved in its use, or to do something unpleasant to the person we feel has wronged us in some way.

In the Caribbean, Nanny, one of Jamaica’s heroes was said to use obeah to repel the British from her country. It was said that on one occasion, she placed an object on fire at the side of a mountain, and when the British soldiers tried to approach the source of the smoke, they fell over the edge of the hill, and met their end. This is the political use of obeah, to bring about a particular result even though you are outmatched. The slaves in Haiti in the 18th century used obeah to battle French forces that were sent against them. They went through certain ceremonies, which they were told would protect them from the effects of bullets. They therefore developed courage and extraordinary bravery, since they felt they could not be harmed. This is the further use of obeah as a political weapon.

In our modern era, the well known president of Haiti, Papa Doc, was said to use obeah as part of his political strategy to deal with opponents, predict how to act, and also to determine the results of his actions. It is alleged that this is what kept him in power for such a long period. However, others say Papa Doc saw obeah as a cultural practice, part of the African heritage, even as a form of religion, and it is an exaggeration to say it was used for ends that could be frowned on.

Even Eric Gairy, the late prime minister of Grenada, was said to be a practitioner of obeah, and used it to remain in power, protect himself from his detractors, and confuse his opponents. Apparently, though, it could not stop Maurice Bishop from overthrowing him.

One of the political neighbours of the Turks and Caicos was also said to use obeah as a political tool to win elections and stay in office for several decades. It is said that on one occasion, when this official visited the obeah priest in Haiti, he explained that he came to get the usual assistance. But the opposition leader for that country had already paid a visit, and had been given the assurance he would be the next prime minister. The obeah priest confused them, so much so that when the sitting prime minister sought help, the obeah priest replied, “Are you not the little short black man who just came here? I thought you were, so I gave the election to him.” This political leader, it is said, was flabbergasted, but the obeah priest could not reverse his act. This is a clear example of obeah being used to practically influence the outcome of an election, whether it was the sole reason or other factors were also involved.

In one of our smaller Caribbean countries, it is alleged that obeah is also used on occasions as a political strategy to unseat a government, or influence voting behaviour. This country is very near to Haiti, which is associated with this practice. It is said that during a certain election period, officials from this small country visited an obeah priest in Haiti, to request assistance in winning the then upcoming election. They were told that one of the visiting persons needed to be turned into a rabbit. It was agreed, and I am told that sure enough, it happened, and a white rabbit was seen jumping about the place. The obeah priest was then free to do his work. Again, whether this affected the election on its own has not been determined.

Again, in this same small country, during another election, a group of candidates met at an outdoor restaurant to discuss election strategies, and Haiti again came up as part of the discussions, concerning who had visited it for help before. One of the candidates, whose seat was being contested, protested against such talk about visiting Haiti. This candidate was promptly told, “You had better shut up, because you have no idea how you were elected the first time around.” This suggested that again, the use of obeah as a strategy was resorted to in securing the seat of this person.

In another election, on election day in one of the constituencies where the contending candidates were observing the voting taking place, it was quickly noticed that there were white handkerchiefs placed inside each desk of the contending candidates except the sitting elected member. The candidates sat around the desks, and all but one did not notice the handkerchiefs. It was later said, that the handkerchiefs had been “fixed,” and they were placed there to cause confusion in the minds of voters who attempted to vote for other candidates apart from the sitting member. They would either spoil the vote, or in their confusion vote for the person they did not intend to, which was the sitting member. Here again, is the use of obeah tactics in determining who would win an election.

Where a recent election was concerned in the same island, the election was regarded as crucial for the supporters of a particular candidate. This was so to such an extent, that someone came up with a suggestion at one of the meetings on the eve of the election, that if their party was to win, then they had to prevent the opposing party’s voters from being among the first thirteen at the polls to vote. The number thirteen seemed so important, that some of these supporters kept up very late on the night of election eve, to ensure they would not allow the opposing political side to form the first thirteen in the line to vote. Here, was the superstition, that an election could be won or lost by heading off the gathering of the first thirteen voters of their opponent. Again the use of obeah as a strategy to influence the results of a political election.

The point is that we really do not know for sure whether the practices and tactics of obeah determined anything, or could determine anything one way or the other. A professional writer on the subject of obeah studied the research done on it, and found that there was no truth or evidence to what was alleged happened, or could happen through the use of obeah strategies. It was all in the imagination, and belonged to the world of fantasy. Still though, obeah has its followers, and practitioners. It is also seen as a religion, and they do believe things could definitely happen, and that it could be used for good, or otherwise.

March 23, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The Pharaoh factor in Caribbean politics

By Oliver Mills



Politics in the Caribbean is in a state of volatility and controversy. The fundamental question is, when has this never been the case?

In one country, accusations are being made over the receipt of aid money from Libya, to help in the rebuilding of the country after the damage done by Hurricane Tomas.

In another, an interim government is in place directing the affairs of the country through an Advisory Council and a Consultative Forum.

In yet another country, its president’s performance has been described as fifth rate, and doing nothing for his country.

Again in another, the political directorate has been accused of having a minimal impact on nation building, and failing to provide intellectual and moral direction towards putting the country on the right track.

What is really going on in the politics of the Caribbean? Why is it that, particularly in four countries, which are indeed representative of the others, there are these contentions against the political directorates? These are tame in comparison to what is happening in other Caribbean countries. And there is no difference whether these countries are independent or not.

We would have thought that with so many years of political maturity, with technology and communications being so highly developed, that some level of sanity would have emerged in the politics of our region. But it has not. Is what is happening a reflection of a lively democracy, or is the critical reason what I have decided to describe, as the Pharaoh factor in Caribbean politics?

The idea of a lively democracy, on the surface would seem to imply unrestricted debate and dialogue over the pertinent issues of the day, elections held within a certain period of time, the presence of opposition forces, and a ‘free’ press. But this seems to be what a political leader in Israel has called, a process, rather than the values that go along with it.

Is democracy therefore more than a process, or a set of procedures, but most importantly a values based practice? When we examine what has just been given as happening in the four Caribbean territories, is it merely processes and procedures, rather than evidence of certain cardinal values which govern, and are integral to the practice of real democracy?

At one level, if one sovereign country decides to negotiate an aid package from another, irrespective of the politics of the lender country, is this not a democratic right to choose and deal with any country one chooses, or is it that either insufficient discussions were held with other political forces, or they were not consulted at all? In the latter sense, is it evidence of Pharaoh politics, rather than the politics of deliberation involving all significant actors?

In the Turks & Caicos, is the formation of an Advisory Council, and a Consultative Forum to assist in the process of governance, after certain alleged behaviours by politicians, a form of democratic intervention, since locals were appointed as members of these bodies, and therefore make decisions on behalf of the country, even though they are not formally elected?

And, are critical comments concerning the performance of the political directorates not evidence of democracy in action? Or, is it because of the practice of Pharaoh politics in the Caribbean by its leaders, which generated this response from other political forces?

Is reaction to policies by political directorates based on the fact that they appear ill-conceived, and in total disregard for the involvement of other interests, a form of democracy in action, or is it a response to political inertia, lack of concern, and self-righteousness of Caribbean political leaders?

Is this not the politics of Pharaoh where the political leader does as he or she wishes, or does not do anything of substance, and does not care irrespective of what others may think?

But what is real and genuine democracy? It involves serious deliberation with others about policies and issues, using rational and reasonable arguments in order to agree on a position satisfactory to all. Here, the general interest is considered, without partiality. Agreement is arrived at through dialogue, and not by the threat of force, psychological or otherwise.

Pharaoh politics on the other hand has to do with some Caribbean leaders being highly autocratic in their actions, running roughshod over competing parties, and of the Pharaoh character feeling that his opinions and actions are above criticism or debate, and all others who challenge this position are unpatriotic, or disrespectful to the office of the Pharaoh.

We have seen Pharaoh politics in action in a most blatant form in Grenada under Gairy, in Haiti under Papa Doc and his son, and in many of the actions of earlier Caribbean leaders on assuming power. Some of these felt that because they were the first to form political parties or trade unions, that there was a certain entitlement they had, and therefore it was rude and disrespectful to challenge them.

Unfortunately, this type of political mentality has seeped down to many of our political operatives. We saw this in a remark by one political leader that it is either his way, or the highway. And again, by the same leader who when challenged to give up leadership after a number of years in opposition said that no other person in the party was qualified to succeed him. This is the politics of Pharaoh in action.

Pharaoh politics is also seen where political supporters break up political meetings, or other gatherings that oppose the existing regimes, or use other intimidating tactics, to discourage opposition activity. It is also seen in the gerrymandering of constituencies giving favour to one political party over the other. It is further seen where after an election, irrespective of the competencies of people, many are removed from their jobs, and replaced by the supporters of the Pharaoh.

Again the politics of Pharaoh shows itself in awarding contracts to the chosen, without even any bidding process being put in place. It is further seen in using the institutions and resources of the state for self enrichment, and the enrichment of Pharaoh’s colleagues at the expense of the people and the sustainability of the state.

It is also observed in the behaviour of the Pharaoh, after accumulating enormous resources for himself. The many homes built, the construction of what could be regarded as palaces, the encouraging of political spies who carry news on others, truthful or simply made up, and the resulting political victimisation of these persons.

Pharaoh politics therefore results in the accumulation of resources through rather innovative means, seeing the populace as us and them, the idea that if you are not with me, you are against me, granting extraordinary favours without using the correct channels, or influencing these channels to do so, and creating psychological fear in others, and the use of reprisals on those who are of a different persuasion.

But what are the origins of Pharaoh politics? It has its beginnings in the parliamentary system of government, surprisingly, since this is the model that is supposed to promote and represent real democracy. This system encourages a maximum leader with enormous powers and authority. This leader can apportion political responsibilities, has the resources to attract support, can dominate politics, and can hire or fire ministers.

The parliamentary system therefore produces autocratic leaders disguised as democratic figures. The maximum leader can also ignore the advice of public officials and his ministers, and appoint his or her own core of advisers. This is the origin of the Pharaoh factor.

From this emerged a situation where two cousins headed two opposing political parties. Two brothers are ministers of government in different parties, and because of the politics, a president hands over office to his wife. And again, a situation where the father was head of government, and was later followed by his son. This is the story of Pharaoh politics in the Caribbean.

And what kind of politics does the Caribbean need to free itself from the grip of Pharaoh politics? It is first of all a politics of values. This means that there are certain values that are adhered to in the practice of political discourse. These include having a moral approach to the issues.

This involves making decisions on their merit, establishing political parties with a moral purpose of what is right and good, and making choices which benefit the entire populace, and not a segment of the country. It also means choosing to run for office, people with ethical backgrounds, and who have a character history of making choices and decisions that are noble and just.

It also means that Caribbean politics needs to be standards based, using prescribed benchmarks which can be measured to determine behaviour that is acceptable. The abolition of Pharaoh politics also means having compassion and care for people and their problems, being sensitive to the needs of others, and having the capacity to put ourselves in the shoes of others. Pharaoh politics lacks compassion and identification with the needs of those who do not share Pharaoh’s vision.

Caribbean politics further needs to have institutions that are honourable and trustworthy, can be depended on to deliver, and that are run by people who show mercy and a sense of deep humanity. Most importantly, the Caribbean intelligentsia needs to educate the public on the real meaning of a changed and relevant politics that is kind, gentle, and reasonable.

We further need to rid ourselves of the politics of hate, divisiveness, and which forms cleavages and factions. The latter needs to be replaced by a politics that is all inclusive, respectful of the individual and his or her contribution, and which puts the interests and welfare of the country, over that of political constructions formed within it.

All of these constitute the ingredients of an antidote to the Pharaoh factor in Caribbean politics.

March 10, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International