The Tribune

Your Say

By MARK HUMES

OUR country has a number of major issues that need tackling immediately. The ones that immediately come to mind are crime, education, lack of job opportunities, the failing economy, the lack of accountability, and lack of transparency in national affairs. We spend a considerable amount of time, energy, and money creating legislation and programmes to address these issues yet they remain.

As a matter of fact, under this Progressive Liberal Party’s term in office, these issues have gotten progressively worse.

Try as we might, we may not make much of a dent in any of these issues if we do not attack one lingering vestige in our social upheaval. I hope I am not reaching, but I would go out on a limb and say that at the heart of our inability to create a modern, orderly Bahamian democracy – free of many of the social nuisances that we are now experiencing – is our insistence on maintaining the current defunct Westminster system of governance under which we exist, the umbilical cord that has us tied up just short of reaching true socio-political “independence”.

This old colonial system of absolute rule was put in place, with the ultimate authority to run the state in the hands of a “king” who was believed to rule by divine right. When The Bahamas became an independent nation, we did nothing to change and free ourselves from this system, despite the effect it had on us prior to us becoming independent. Our leaders took over this old oppressive system that at one-time disadvantaged us as a people and, today, they continue to take advantage of its oppressive ways. They are now starting to do this for as long as they can, most times to the detriment of other potential leaders and national progress. What we are now witnessing, in the growing chaos taking place in our society under this second term of Perry Christie, is how our system of absolute rule - where the prime minister is the chief and ultimate decider – continues to be as socially oppressive, as it was before majority rule, particularly when the “king” prime minister is found inadequate.

Jamaica possibly recognised the failings in this colonial system and is seeking to correct the issue for the future, moving to have the queen, and in some ways, the Westminster system, replaced with a new system that has a non-executive president as head of state. Likewise, as a people, we have complained about the Westminster system of governance as an impediment to our true independence for decades, but no leader has been bold enough to take a similar stance and commit to and lead on calling for amendments to our Constitution similar to those being called for in Jamaica. Such a step would require a leader who can advocate passionately and convincingly, with the forward movement of society in mind, for Bahamian people to pack up their stuff from the middle of the desert and make the major decision to leave the Commonwealth of the Bahamas behind and get on the road leading to the Republic of The Bahamas – where we should honestly be accountable to ourselves and have our own president as the head of state.

Perhaps the Free National Movement (FNM), in considering a more progressive reform to its own party’s constitution at its national convention, can also consider the ramifications of replacing the Westminster system as our governance system. And, if the pros outweigh the cons, have it become a part of the party’s campaign platform and a top legislative item coming out of convention. The FNM can push for the change if it sees the suggestion as one that moves us, as a people and country, in the right direction of change. In the region, we would be joining, not only Jamaica, but also Barbados, Dominica, and Trinidad and Tobago in seeking to become or in being a republic.

After considering this item and other legislative amendments that would limit the powers of this new head of state, the FNM convention can also consider platform items that would call for: (I) fixed national election dates, (II) term limits for the head of state, (III) reform to the election processes for national and local government posts, and (IV) recall and criminal proceedings legislation that can be brought against corrupt public officials and parliamentarians.

Fixed National Election Dates

There is no getting away from the fact that not knowing the exact date when an election will be called is a major problem. In an article, Professor Robert Blackburn describes this unfair advantage by saying, a “Prime minister sets an election date at the time when he thinks he is most likely to win it. Conversely, he will avoid such times as he is likely to lose it. The anachronistic state of the law on electoral timing adversely affects the fairness of the election process as a whole. It gives the party in government a tremendous tactical advantage over the opposition parties, and of all the possible flaws to be found in our electoral law and administration, this perhaps above all other matters does most harm to the integrity of the electioneering contest.”

There is no getting away from it. Our current electoral system causes a tremendous amount of anxiety and confusion for voters and creates great tension between the governing party, the opposition and the nation – with the last two usually being left in the dark. Having fixed national dates will take some of the chaos out of the election process and levels the election playing field for all involved in the process. Again, if the society demands to have a more equitable and transparent election process and the current plan is not working, then it would be incumbent on us to get rid of the plan in favour of something new – if we really hear society’s demands; the FNM should be the proponents of this new plan. Do away with people being held hostage to the party that is the government, even if we are that government.

If the party decides to be bold and amend its constitution to have fixed dates for conventions, election of party officers, and leadership, then fixing the dates for the national election would be a beneficial complement to that change. Coordination efforts between the two would be less messy, more convenient, and more manageable.

Term limits on a head of state

The lack of term limits on a head of state emanates from European, colonial styled “democracies”. And one of the disadvantages of this colonial Westminster system is that the leader stays in office for too long and becomes insensitive to the needs and wishes of the people as time goes by, which can stifle progress.

In systems where power is spread more widely and evenly, the lack of term limits can possible work well. However, in the Bahamian Westminster system, where power is centralised, we are experiencing how this system becomes and remains problematic. With the idea that Perry Christie can serve another five years in office, despite two terms of poor performance, most of us are coming to our senses once again that we do not need these types of leaders remaining in power for too long in the future. The thought of another Christie term reminds us that regular and guaranteed changes at the top is not only wanted but needed.

So, in addition to considering limiting the term of its own party leader, the FNM should also look at proposing term limits to national leaders as a part of its party platform.

Reform to the election process

In my previous article on modernising the FNM platform, I put forward some recommendations for the party’s consideration in relation to reforming the party’s leadership election process. Many of the suggestions for reforming the national and local government electoral processes are based on the same reasoning I used for reforming the party’s election process in the previous article. In a subsequent article, I will expound on reforming the national and local process because it calls for a greater depth of discussion, particularly on the restructuring of the whole machinery, than this space would allow. The main thing, however, is to understand that reformation to the election process is to open it up to more people at the local level as a form of deepening democracy.

Recall and criminal proceedings to be brought against corrupt public officials and parliamentarians

This is self-explanatory. There should be no reason why this should not be a part of any party’s platform and early legislative agenda if it wishes to become and establish itself as the more progressive of the other political parties.

I am and will advocate for the FNM party to take the necessary bold moves at convention and in its platform coming out of convention, particularly in the above areas, to begin laying the framework for its own party’s reinvention and the reinvention of Bahamian democracy that is different from the one the former colonialists left in place for the Bahamian society and more compatible with a democracy that is a symbolic representation of where most Bahamians are in their thinking as a people trying to move out of a 20th century colonial past into a more modern, 21st century Bahamas.

In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau says, “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” The Bahamian people have been saying for decades what type of government they would like to have that would command their respect, but they do not seem to be obtaining it because government really does not see anything wrong with itself and the way it does business. And even though times and the governed have changed and continue to change, the government has not and does not seem willing to change itself.

Our developing democracy is kicking and screaming for change. And to create trust in the mind of voters and signal that the Free National Movement, coming out of convention, is the party most prepared to put in place systems that meet the current needs of this generation of Bahamians, again, I would like to suggest, once again, that we must use our convention to show that we can make better decisions by examining issues at their core and solving these core issues, that we are not afraid of the challenge when it comes to taking on these core issues, and that we are the party with the ideas that can inspire change, growth and innovation because of our willingness to tackle the core issues.

The FNM’s platform and legislative agenda, coming out of convention, should be a clear indication of our priorities, and fixing government and governance should be seen as one of our first and top priorities. I can almost guarantee you that what we are seeing in our people’s so-called delinquent behaviour today is simply them saying to us, “stop trying to fix us; fix yourselves first.”

So, FNMs, let us - in our platform and works.

• Mark Humes is a professor at The College of The Bahamas and former Democratic National Alliance candidate for Fort Charlotte and former chairman of that party. He is also president of the Union of Tertiary Educators of The Bahamas. Mr Humes joined the Free National Movement earlier this year.