The Tribune

By SIMON

INCREASINGLY, when aspirants who desire or apply to become candidates for their parties in the House of Assembly are denied a nomination, they get vex, load up their Georgie Bundles, bush crack gone to another party. Egotism reigns supreme.

There are those who leave a political party for principled reasons. Many others, however, depart out of undistilled transactionalism, desperately seeking patronage and relevance. Party loyalty is easily dispensed, with some joining another party they railed against with passion for decades.

With the major parties having mostly completed candidate selections and the general election on the way, it’s an opportune moment to recall some of the basics of party politics in our parliamentary democracy.

Many Bahamians, including some who ought to know better, frequently conflate our system of government with that of the United States of America. Both are democracies, of course, but beyond that the two are structured quite differently.

The current state of politics in the US has revealed the stark differences, including many of the weaknesses of the American constitutional arrangement and conventions, which are under perilous stress.

The Bahamas is a parliamentary democracy and its executive branch, the Cabinet, is based in and responsible to Parliament. The prime minister and all the ministers must sit in Parliament, the overwhelming majority in the elected chamber, the House of Assembly. In the United States, the president is elected directly by the states and sits independently of the Congress.

The president also appoints the cabinet. And while the appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, none of them are members of the Congress. None of them are elected.

In the Bahamas, a prime minister and his cabinet can be brought down by the House of Assembly at any time by a vote of no confidence.

In the US, the president can only be removed by an elaborate impeachment process or, in the case of disability, through a process set out in the 25th Amendment.

The Bahamas Constitution presumes the existence of, and government by, political parties. Article 73 provides that the prime minister must be a member of the House “who is leader of the party which commands the support of the majority of the members of the House.”

There is no mention of political parties anywhere in the American Constitution. In fact, some of the authors of that 18th century constitution, including George Washington, were not keen on the idea of political parties. But the idea inevitably and necessarily took root, nevertheless.

For our parliamentary democracy to work, there must be cohesive, disciplined political parties in Parliament, parties whose members are bound together generally by a set of objectives and principles. Generally, because it’s highly unlikely that any political party exists in the world whose each and every member agrees with everything the party advocates or does.

In the United States, party discipline is not nearly as important as it is in our parliamentary system. Some members of Congress make a career out of anti-party activity, and are celebrated for being mavericks.

In our system, by contrast, elected members of a party who do not understand this difference--or forget it--do so at their political peril.

In our Parliament, there are two teams: the Government and the Opposition.  Members of each side are elected as members of their particular team and are expected to support their team against the other side, especially in important matters like the budget.

Loyalty to a party or institution is not synonymous with being a toady or a boot licker and butt kisser. Indeed, it takes great courage to be loyal. Political tribalism can become poisonous and excessive, as we have witnessed during national emergencies such as during the COVID-19 pandemic and post-Hurricane Dorian.

Still, politics and political groupings are an advancement in how human societies are organised, a means of taming our baser instincts and penchant for violence and unchecked group- and self-interests.

Democratic and parliamentary politics is necessarily adversarial. It’s a civilised alternative to settling differences through violence on a battlefield or in the streets. It descends into tribalism when we revert to victimisation, spite, and societal exclusion as political weapons. 

“Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary,” stated the late Reinhold Niebuhr, a pastor and one of the preeminent theologians and political commentators of the 20th century.

Niebuhr observed that democratic political systems are naturally confrontational, partisan, and given to conflict. Democratic politics is an advancement for human groups that throughout history were prone to settle many conflicts without the rules of democracy, designed to check group interests and the lust for power.

Human beings are naturally competitive. The contesting of values and viewpoints are designed to produce better outcomes, though--given human fallibility and corruption--the best outcomes often do not come to fruition.

Our court system is based on contestation, with prosecution and defence teams vigorously promoting their cases that are, in turn, adjudicated by judges and juries. There are safeguards like rules of evidence, precedence, judicial reviews and appellate courts.

Likewise, in a party-based democracy there are institutions, principally parliament, and rules, conventions, and traditions. The final adjudicators in a democracy, the people, elect representatives to debate and to decide on matters affecting the common good.

It’s in the political arena that humans contest values, ideas, and beliefs, and balance group and individual interests. The lifeblood of parliamentary democracy is a party system based on competition and contest, which are necessary for democracies to flourish. Any citizen may join or support a party to promote their ideas and interests.

Democracy partially evolved in reaction to monarchical or autocratic forms of government. As messy and dysfunctional as it sometimes seems, a competitive party-based system is an advancement in how a society is organised and governed.

Our pluralist constitutional cum parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure a contest for power as a check against one-party rule and dictatorship. Partisans debate their views in a parliament, where there are well-established rules to guide its proceedings.

Lawmakers and politicians are also guided and bound by the constitution and the courts. And they are also checked by voters and their parties. Our system has even more checks on the political power of the executive than the US system.

Some time spent at the National Archives, or reading the clippings in the well-kept archives of The Tribune, may provide both younger and older reporters and editors greater perspective and insight as they write stories and offer commentary on contemporary politics and parliamentary debates.

Many of the ferocious debates from the 1960s to the 1990s and 2000s, make contemporary parliamentary contests appear like much tamer and boring affairs.

The candidates proposed by the major parties are a mixed bunch, as is often the case. Refreshingly, there are a high number of female candidates. Some of those proposed are underwhelming, but there are a few rising stars, some of whom who may have their eyes on a higher prize.

Those who want to succeed politically should improve their parties from within and remain loyal to a set of principles as well their political homes. They should, moreover, study our parliamentary system, helping to improve contemporary politics utilising an ancient and tested system of governance.