Cleaning up the Bahamian Political Process

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

A Tribune editorial last week quoted someone as saying that Bahamian voters have to be weaned away from the idea that every five years is a one-day bonanza for them as they figure out what they can get out of a candidate for themselves.

The Tribune was commenting on a suggestion by Foreign Affairs and Public Service Minister Fred Mitchell who had earlier suggested that both parties get together to put a cap on election spending. This is a good idea but not a new one. It usually comes up around election time but is quickly forgotten afterwards.

It is too late to do anything for this year’s election but perhaps the time has come for both parties to agree to do something soon after to control election spending. That would be a good thing for the parties, for politicians and for the country.

As if to underline the seriousness of the problem, independent Member of Parliament for South Andros Whitney Bastian made the astonishing admission that in the run-up to the last election – 1999 to 2002 – he spent one million dollars!

That is utterly obscene and the best that can be said about it is that Mr. Bastian was honest in confirming what some people might have regarded as wild and extravagant rumours about his spending in connection with the South Andros constituency.

He told radio talk show host Wendall Jones that he does not intend to spend such a substantial amount of money this time around. It is a pity that Mr. Jones did not press him for details about how he spent such an amount in the first place.

There are two aspects of the problem of election campaign spending in The Bahamas. The first was referred to by The Tribune’s contributor, and that is the corrupt practice of buying votes; the second is the skyrocketing cost of paraphernalia.

We have come a long way from the days of the torn five pound note and rum and flour politicking in The Bahamas, but we still have a way to go in cleansing the political culture of remnants of the paternalistic and dependency syndrome which have survived the bad old days.

Today, an honest politician can fall back on the laws that are already on the books when he is asked to buy votes and to participate in other corrupt practices. He can simply say that it is against the law.

What is not so easy is where to draw the line in the case of compassion competition when a candidate can be approached for all kinds of things including money for the electricity bill, making a mortgage payment to save someone’s house and other more ingenious appeals.

In this contest, the candidate or representative who may be an excellent representative, but not wealthy, is at a distinct disadvantage; and that is not good for our democracy. One such decent politician was ruined in the compassion competition following the 1956 general election.

There are, of course, genuine cases of need when any compassionate human being -- politician or not -- is moved to lend assistance. But both political parties must agree to root out the paternalistic concept of politician as personal banker, employment agent and primary source of charity.

Perhaps it is time to review and strengthen the laws against vote-buying and other corrupt practices. Clearly it is time for the parties to control year-round gift-giving and to put caps even on legitimate expenditures in an election campaign.

There was a time when candidates and representatives were expected, with help from contributors, to seek out deserving persons in their constituencies for gifts of ham and turkey at Christmas time.

Nowadays, there are some persons with two cars in the garage who, instead of contributing to this worthy effort, expect the candidate to give them ham and turkey as well. Some well-off representatives have expanded on this by distributing in their constituencies Valentine’s Day chocolates, Mothers Day Flowers and Easter eggs!

It is wonderful to be living in a beautiful archipelagic country like The Bahamas but it is expensive to provide public facilities and services to a dozen islands with many scattered settlements, as well as a large number of populated cays.

So too, the cost of campaigning in the Family Islands is extremely high. Travel by air, sea and land, and accommodations are expensive and in some cases the price goes up at election time. All these are legitimate expenses; but what does not make sense is the skyrocketing cost of competition in election paraphernalia.

It used to be that the parties would print and distribute T-shirts that cost a few dollars to their workers, but now they compete with expensive cotton golf shirts that are distributed throughout the constituencies. And some voters want the shirts of both parties to wear after an election, depending on who wins!

So, relatively big money is required in Bahamian elections and that raises the worrying question about how the parties are financed.

The substantial individual contributor will, perhaps, always be needed, but political leaders must work to develop a culture in which citizens contribute to their party of choice rather than encouraging people to look to the party for handouts.

It is not likely that we have reached the level of maturity where substantial Bahamian contributors will feel comfortable having their names publicly revealed. There is still too much of the old poison in our system that leads to victimization.

But something must certainly be done about super rich foreign individuals and companies who may be tempted to subvert the course of Bahamian politics for their own benefit.

The PLP was embarrassed after the last election when it was revealed that one such foreigner made what must have been the biggest contribution of all time from one source to a Bahamian political party – the figure varies from $3 million to $10 million. And this gentleman obviously had a clear and specific objective in mind.

The parties may consider whether it is feasible to ban foreigners altogether from contributing to our political parties. An alternative would be to establish a fund to which foreigners who are interested in promoting Bahamian democracy and stability can contribute. The money can be distributed on the basis of votes won at the previous election.

There is another matter that does not relate to election campaigning but which the parties may discuss with a view to laying down some ground rules or even enacting laws.

It has to do with what elected representatives should or should or should not accept for their personal benefit from individuals and companies doing business in The Bahamas, especially foreigners entities.

Sometimes it is difficult for a politician to refuse a courtesy extended with good intentions, but the line should be drawn somewhere so he can refuse an especially generous courtesy without giving insult.

Unfortunately, there are persistent and credible reports of some Bahamian politicians who not only accept reasonable unsolicited courtesies but actually demand valuable considerations such as free access to hotel rooms, restaurants, health spas and golf courses.

If the political parties would take a serious look at all these matters after the next election, and agree a code of conduct for their candidates and elected representatives, then we would have made a giant stride forward in cleaning up, even ennobling, Bahamian politics and public life.