Violence and the Pronouncements of Bahamian Politicians

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

The fight in the Cabinet room between two Members of Parliament was a shameful episode in Bahamian politics, but it was also a great opportunity for Prime Minister Perry Christie to make an effective statement about the rising tide of violence which plagues Bahamian society.

Mr. Christie takes pride in his ability to communicate, and he is indeed one of our most articulate politicians ever. On this occasion he had the attention of the whole nation.

Everybody -- including many young Bahamians who are at risk of being seduced into a subculture of violence -- was waiting to hear what he had to say.

It was a chance for him publicly to lecture his offending colleagues on the unacceptability of violent behaviour. Keod Smith and Kenyatta Gibson should have made an immediate and unconditional apology and should have offered their resignations to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Christie could have made a positive impression on the young people of the country and, at that early stage, it might have been possible for him to decline their resignations. But confusion, expediency and indecision got the better of him, and he failed.

Instead of seizing the opportunity unconditionally to repudiate violence, Mr. Christie first sought to pass it off as a laughing matter. It should have been clear to him, or somebody should have brought it to his attention, that the Bahamian people did not regard it as a joke.

If a poll were to be taken today about issues that most concern the Bahamian people, no doubt crime -- particularly violent crime -- would be at or near the top. Hardly a day passes without reports of violent incidents, a troubling number of them having to do with failure to manage conflicts.

But Mr. Christie chose to collaborate with his two colleagues in an attempt to cover up the incident, even though details of what had happened had spread far and wide in a matter of hours.

In the end, public outrage at the obvious cover-up persuaded the two men to resign their appointive posts. Even after three weeks Mr. Christie could not bring himself to ask for their resignations. The credibility of all three of them is in tatters.

* * *

In the debate that swirled around this affair, particularly on the radio talk shows, it was astonishing to hear some of the foolishness that fell from the lips of people who ought to know better.

On the question of violence itself, one would have thought that intelligent and civilized people in the 21st century would be unanimous in their condemnation of it, but it appears that some are prepared to put their political agendas ahead of principle.

In spite of the horrors of violence on bloody display in so many places around the world, and in spite of our own struggle with it at home, there still lingers in us the tendency to glorify violence and to see it as a legitimate means of solving problems and settling disputes.

In centuries gone by some good and noble men accepted violence as an inescapable, even necessary, element of the human condition. Violence was glorified in poetry and celebrated in song, even hymn.

The great Christian reformer Martin Luther declared, “No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody.”

It is true that as long as there are aggressors and tyrants who seek to impose their evil will on others by the sword, just men will sometimes have no choice but to resist with the sword. The individual also has the right to defend himself and others from aggression.

But civilized human beings cannot accept violence as inevitable. Two great leaders of the 20th century demonstrated that even in the pursuit of freedom and equality and other noble objectives, violence can be avoided.

“I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes,” said the Hindu Mohandas Gandhi. He went on to break the back of the greatest empire in history by nonviolent means. His Christian disciple Martin Luther King conducted a magnificent struggle for racial equality the same way.

Today we must impress on our young people that any fool can resort to violence, that it is not the manly thing to do, that true strength of character is best expressed in the rejection of violence.

* * *

Then there was the argument that the fight between Keod Smith and Kenyatta Gibson was a private fight over a private issue and had nothing to do with the public. But that is not true.

Fighting is a very risky and dangerous business. Suppose it had gotten out of hand and one of them was sent sailing through the window, or one had picked up a chair and cracked the skull of the other: would that have been a private murder?

When the public finds out that two MPs have engaged in a violent altercation, it does not matter where it happened. What is important is that the public is concerned that two of its elected representatives are prone to violence.

The same would be true if people found out they had elected a wife-beater or abuser of women and children. It would not matter whether the beating and abuse took place in the bedroom, in a private club or in the bush.

In another age some considered it noble for two men to settle their differences or to avenge an insult in a formal duel with swords or pistols or fists. It was never civilized and eventually society progressed beyond that. We now have courts and other facilities for the settlement of all kinds of disputes.

* * *

We were told that the Cabinet Room of The Bahamas Government is not a public place. That is true in the sense that it is not open to the public like a restaurant or a supermarket.

But neither is it a private club. It is owned by the people of the Bahamas and is a place where the public’s business is carried out by Ministers of the Government and their officials, albeit in secret.

Bahamians are reasonable people and accept that there is nothing wrong with Ministers meeting with their backbench colleagues, or any other persons, to do the public’s business in the Cabinet Room.

But it is wrong to turn that place into a venue for private arguments and violent brawls and the consequent destruction of government property -- the public’s property.

Comments

[Bob Knaus]

Hear, hear!

I'm not a Bahamian but I love the Bahamas. If there's a society anywhere that can govern itself without violence, it's right here in these islands.

Keep up the good work!