Open-minded politics and the Caribbean

By Oliver Mills:

Caribbean politics in many ways can be regarded as being a closed-minded activity. We as Caribbean people often have our allegiance to political parties pre-determined for us by our political culture, and through political socialisation. Through these processes, our minds from very early are shaped to accept designated political beliefs, which very often we do not question, or even revise, despite the fact that the political organisations we support can often behave in unacceptable ways. We therefore become the victims of our own choice. We are therefore not open-minded about the political beliefs we hold.

William Hare, a former professor at Dalhousie University, says that open-mindedness is the ability to hold particular views, but to revise them when new evidence that contradicts them is presented. To me this means we remain open to the possibility that what we currently hold to be true; can be found to have no basis or substance when new evidence is presented to the contrary. We should therefore revise our original position, and adopt the new, evidence-based one, despite the psychological unease we may experience, because of the changes necessary to put things right.

The lack of open-minded thinking in Caribbean politics is seen most starkly just before independence, when Caribbean governments had other political systems to choose from, but instead retained the one they inherited. This meant continued governance by the well-off and parliamentary legislation being formulated to benefit the elites. Since the system benefited only a minority at the expense of the majority, there was no consideration of reflecting in an open-minded way, on whether it needed to be evaluated, and replaced by one which was more equitable.

A closed-minded view of politics therefore prevailed from the eve of independence to the present. Independence itself was a gift to the Caribbean closed-minded elite. This is why every Caribbean independent country is experiencing the same problems in some form presently, since the content of the gift was worse than the packaging.

Apart from not being open-minded about the inherited political institutions, there was, and still is no attempt to politically educate citizens of the independent countries in a serious way to rid their minds of the myths their previous controllers had, and still have about them.

One Caribbean author states that myths were used to make people contented with their lot. For example, they were told the social order under which they lived was natural, and even divine. This led to a cowed ambition, and an existence without any serious purpose, since everything was fixed. Few Caribbean countries since independence have sought to free the minds of their citizens in a systematic way from the complexes the pre-independence period imposed on them.

Because of this, unhealthy negative thinking remains, and some of the coping mechanisms in the pre- and post-independence period were and are to submit to the system and be contented with it, while seeking to be recruited into the ranks of those who wielded, and still possess power and authority, so they could be a part of the system of dominance, and so help to keep their own people quiet and obedient. This is the closed-minded way of coping, and these behaviours remain in the present era.

Some who used this strategy, and still employ it, include the educated middle class. Closed-minded thinking has therefore led to economic stagnancy, exhausted political ideas and, most frightening of all, it has led to ministers of government behaving like civil servants, rather than transformational leaders.

The political directorate in the Caribbean has therefore become copycats of other systems, because they have not employed open-minded thinking to find alternative social arrangements that would work in their respective countries.

In one area where the Caribbean political directorate has become most open-minded though, is in the role of the maximum political leader, or prime minister, simply because it gives them more power, and authority. This is shown where, according to Trevor Munroe, the Caribbean prime minister dominates the executive or cabinet, more than does the British prime minister, and we also have a political culture which defers to our leaders.

The prime minister in the Caribbean also exercises greater control over his or her party than what obtains in Britain, since party candidates are approved by the leader. In Britain, the candidate for election is chosen by the people in the constituency. The Caribbean prime minister’s power over the legislature is also greater than that of the British prime minister, because he or she has the power to dissolve parliament.

We have seen, then, that open-mindedness in Caribbean politics exists only where it benefits the leaders. If they see where being open-minded gives them an edge, they revise their views on certain practices. If no political mileage is gained, closed-mindedness prevails.

But open-mindedness goes beyond personal advantage. It is about being constantly alert to the possibility that the political environment might change and so endanger progressive policies. It is being constantly open to the changes in the way the electorate measures the political winds, and decides to change with them. It is being open to new political ideas and philosophies, which are transformational in character. And it is having the willingness to adopt, make decisions based on evidence, and so provide citizens of the Caribbean with a prosperous, happy, and viable society.

Most importantly, open-mindedness involves the willingness of Caribbean leaders to give up their most cherished ideas, once new evidence shows they no longer have credence, and change them for those that have.

April 03, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

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

Sex, scandal and society

Barbara Gloudon

THERE'S nothing we love more than a juicy scandal.  Bring it on, especially if politics and politicians are in the mix-up and blenda.  Our adrenalin gets going when the talk turns to corruption and any kinda ruption, which can prove what we believe -- that politics and politricks walk hand in hand.  A recent survey says corruption is diminishing a bit, but let's see before we break out the champagne.

Up North, the three-letter word (S-E-X) is part of the scandal equation not only for errant politicians but for sports persons and entertainment superstars.  There's nothing to boost ratings in the media like news of a headliner caught with pants down.  (Remember President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?)  Efforts to take the US economy out of its tailspin paled in significance to the lurid coverage of Tiger Woods' dalliance.

Now that he's handed over a hefty chunk of his fortune to his ex-wife and is fighting a slump in his golf game, interest in him has waned considerably.  He is not the first US hero to crumble under the crushing weight of a sex scandal.  It's happened before and will happen again, so long as women are drawn by the aphrodisiac of fame, athletic physiques, and the possibility of a pay-off.

The groupie phenomenon is prevalent in the entertainment world but somehow, if we're to go by reports, entertainers do not seem to crash as spectacularly as sporting heroes.  In our territory (the Caribbean), we are not as concerned about the romantic life of our superstars, not even when they mistreat women. Sadly, very often their staunchest defenders, willing to forgive, are women...  The boys pretty much do what they want, thanks to the culture of — "Man haffe do wha a man haffe do — yuh nuh".  The word for the boys: "If you can afford it, go for it.  Nutten wrong wid gal inna bungle."

On the occasions when we do get a glimpse of the dark side of a hero, we don't quite know what to make of it.  The recent exposé by England's notorious SUN tabloid of the alleged boudoir exploits of our Number One name-brand runner-boy, may have excited comment Up There but has barely evoked a whisper Down Here.  In some quarters, there seems to be nothing but admiration among "the boys" for our young hero's achievement of having two hot young women fighting over him and the drama played out in the media.

The claim of one of the women that she has received text messages to participate in...shall we say, group activities... is definitely TMI — Too Much Information — for some, but not everyone.  I met one person who responded, "All that stuff about threesomes and foursomes, who can prove that he really said it?  Who knows if the girl is telling the truth?"  Another view was, "So what?  If he can manage it, why should anybody be concerned?"  Then there are the many variations on the theme: "Youthful exuberance, that is all it is.  What do you expect of a 24-year-old, with all that money and all that fame?"  Not surprisingly, the foregoing responses came from men.  One woman's response was, "I don't believe he would do that."

Should it matter really what this young man or any of our other young achievers do with their private time?  Why shouldn't an athlete, an entertainer or anyone else who has attained success, be free to enjoy the benefits of their efforts in whatever permutations they choose?  So long as no laws are being broken, should the rest of the community have any right to pass judgement on their private conduct?  Not everyone is comfortable with that.  What about moral values, role model and all that?  Shouldn't we expect a certain level of conduct from people whom we hold up as icons?

Let's face it — arguments based on morality don't get very far here.  Check the debates on lewd lyrics, slackness in dancehall and in the electronic media.  A popular response is that people should be allowed to do what they want to do.  "Leave us alone, thank you, please".  That is for everybody except the politicians.  So far nobody seems interested in their sex life.  We leave that to those Up North.  But back to the super-heroes, should they care if we find out what they do when the lights are turned off?

They need to be reminded that it doesn't take much for the cheers to stop.  It is not such a long way from today's super-hero to tomorrow's "super-who"?  The feeling is that we should not be too hard on "the youths".  It's not such an easy thing to go overnight from pickney looking a lunch money and a bus fare, to platinum-card millionaire.  It seems almost ungracious to warn about the potholes which can develop along the way.

Since Beijing, many of our young athletes have gained worldwide fame, and with it, healthy financial returns.  They have become our new standard-bearers representing the best of JA.  We've proclaimed them to be our Brand Jamaica.  Should we expect any more of them?  For the most part, they have been doing so well.  Perhaps it is time for a little word of caution, however, that juvenile over-indulgence is to be avoided at all costs, especially too much information on bedroom olympics.

MR CLINTON CAME TO TOWN: Billed as an evening of intellectual challenge, it could not escape, however, being another high society event.  It's the times!  How could a former President of the United States of America come to town and we didn't play dress-up and nibble on gourmet delicacies?  (Never mind that he spoke about poverty.)

The promoters apparently had their own reason for confining it to a high-end audience with an entrance fee of J$13,000 for regulars and US$1,000 for VIPs, I'm told.  That was guaranteed to exclude those who wrestle every day with the soaring cost of chicken and flour.  Corporate sponsorship more than took care of both the Bill and the bill.  Not surprisingly, the event was an overwhelming success, fully sold out.

Feedback is that some thought the speech was the best thing since sliced bread.  Others said they'd heard it all before.  Some asked, why did it have to take a visitor (no matter how presidential) to make us sit up and listen to what we've been told often before (for example, urgency of solar energy) but haven't been interested enough to hear?  Most said just to be in Bill Clinton's presence was worth it all.

DIS-COVER-UP: Did you see the disguises of the new millionaire winners in the Lotto Jackpot advertisement this week?  Talk about Halloween!  There's no limit to which some people will go to keep friends and relatives from beggie-beggie!... SING ON, COOL RULER... Gregory Isaacs moves on to the Ultimate Engagement.  Another page is turned... The vintage list is getting shorter.

gloudonb@yahoo.com

October 29, 2010

jamaicaobserver