by Simon
Despite some challenges, we are good at the business of democracy. We have assimilated its ideals and practices, among them the rituals of generally free and fair elections.
Bahamians love politics. From arguing with co-workers to casting our ballots, we thrive on the drama and pure fun of election time. Because of our size, we see democracy upfront. The candidates and their agents come to our homes seeking our support. We get to praise or cuss them out in person.
•Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com.
There should be at least two major winners in the Elizabeth constituency bye-election, namely the victorious candidate as well as our democratic system. There will be losers, including some of the defeated candidates and a number of endlessly recycled ideas that have grown shop worn.Despite some challenges, we are good at the business of democracy. We have assimilated its ideals and practices, among them the rituals of generally free and fair elections.
Bahamians love politics. From arguing with co-workers to casting our ballots, we thrive on the drama and pure fun of election time. Because of our size, we see democracy upfront. The candidates and their agents come to our homes seeking our support. We get to praise or cuss them out in person.
We continue to mature as a democracy. There is an ongoing refinement of our electoral processes and safeguards. For example we need to review our election broadcast rules and the integrity of the voter rolls.
The Bahamas has conducted some of the more violence-free elections in the world. We threw the PLP out after 25 years, the FNM after 10 and the PLP again after five with not a gunshot fired.
Some observers have a snobbish and cynical view of Bahamian voters. Yet, voters continue to become more sophisticated and discerning than many recognize or will admit. Because most voters revel in the rallies and rhetoric of campaigns does not mean that they are not of serious purpose when weighing for whom to vote.
While voters may have concerns about certain aspects of our elections and various current politicians, they are deeply committed to our two-party parliamentary system. They are not as naive as some imagine, and appreciate the genius of our system in maintaining stability and national unity.
2010 is no more the year of the independent than was 1997, 2002 or 2007. Many believe that the duration of the men at the helm of the two major political parties is the final word on the ability of these respective parties to renew themselves.
This would be true if we enjoyed a different form of government. But at the heart of our democratic experience is a system of cabinet government with collective responsibility not solitary executive power as is the case in the United States.
Today’s FNM cabinet is significantly different in terms of its make-up than when the party was voted out in 2002. Likewise, the PLP cabinet of 2002 was quite different than its last cabinet in 1992. We have a greater capacity to renew our parliamentary and cabinet ranks and hence our political parties than many are willing to admit.
This election is an ironic example of this. In addition to Dr. Andre Rollins of the National Democratic Party (NDP) the new faces this election come from the two major parties, namely Ryan Pinder for the PLP and Dr. Duane Sands for the FNM.
Mr. Pinder is a 35-year-old newcomer to frontline politics with a professional background as a tax attorney. Dr. Sands, 47, also a newcomer, is a noted surgeon. Both candidates bring new blood and energy to the established parties.
Rodney Moncur and his Worker’s Party have been around for a long time. In many ways they are old news. Cassius Stuart of the Bahamian Democratic Movement (BDM) has been on the frontlines longer than Messrs. Pinder and Sands. Which brings us to the so-called great debate in Elizabeth.
PRECEDENT
Debates can be a useful and important part of our electoral process. But they have to be well conceived and executed. The Elizabeth debate, while a good idea, was neither of these. While it set a good precedent for the idea of debates, it set a bad precedent for how to produce and organize them.
The template for a well conceived and organized debate was designed by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches during the 2002 general election. That debate between various party leaders enjoyed significant features absent from the recent candidates’ debate organized by Wendall Jones and his Jones Communications Network.
For a debate to be successful it must be and must be seen to be run by a thoroughly independent and nonpartisan entity. Further, it must be vigorously controlled by the moderator. Perhaps rattled by Mr. Moncur’s theatrics, Mr. Jones lost control of the debate quite early, never really regaining his footing as the moderator.
To reinforce his authority and role as moderator, Mr. Jones could have designed a format which would have allowed him to ask the candidates various follow-up questions, challenging many of their rehearsed responses, inaccuracies and misstatements.
The round-robin format of each candidate simply answering the same question, with no interjections from the moderator, failed to provide listeners with the dynamism of a real debate. Indeed, the templates for many of our high school debates would have yielded more results than the Elizabeth format.
Despite the rhetoric, participating in a political debate is not a grand moral imperative for a candidate. It is a political decision. On that score Dr. Sands, without participating, did quite well in the debate.
His decision to stay out of the debate left Ryan Pinder to the mercy of the other parties who quickly proceeded to make him their main target. The PLP would have been better advised not to have participated in the debate if the FNM was not prepared to participate.
Further, the decision of Party Leader Perry Christie to attend the forum remains a mystery. It was an obvious political mistake that he or his advisers should have foreseen. It placed him in the audience on an unequal footing and unable to defend himself from the inevitable attacks from Messrs. Moncur, Rollins and Stuart.
The cutaways to Mr. Christie, his face broadcasting his displeasure with the flow of the debate, did not help his candidate. But neither did Mr. Pinder help his Leader. Also rattled by Mr. Moncur, Mr. Pinder failed to defend Mr. Christie from various attacks, most notably on the issue of national health insurance. Indeed, Mr. Moncur used Mr. Christie as a foil throughout the debate.
Drowning under the weight of attacks from all sides and constant derision from Mr. Moncur, Mr. Pinder not only failed to advance his candidacy, he also lost the debate. As a major party candidate he always had more to lose absent Dr. Sands’ participation. To have forestalled this outcome he would have needed to be an exceptional debater with considerable debate experience.
Rodney Moncur won what he could from the debate by being Rodney Moncur. He was by turns outrageous, entertaining and insightful. He had little to lose in this format and much to gain.
LACKLUSTRE
BDM Leader Cassius Stuart’s performance was lacklustre. He paled in comparison to Dr. Rollins, who though overly aggressive at times, seemed more substantive and engaged than the supposedly more seasoned Stuart. This is surprising considering that Mr. Stuart did well in the aforementioned leader’s debate sponsored by the Roman Catholic and Anglican communities.
The BDM received 75 votes in Elizabeth in the last election, which was more than the number by which the PLP won the seat in 2007. If the BDM, with its Leader contesting the seat, fail to garner at least 75 votes or more, it will be a significant failure for a party, whom many are taking less seriously. Not only is the BDM’s momentum stalling, its ideas are not as sharp as they once were.
In many ways, Dr. Rollins won the debate in terms of substance, though he did get some of his facts wrong, a potentially fatal error in a debate. Fortunately for him, his fellow candidates and the moderator failed to call him on his mistakes.
Tonight, no matter which party wins, we can all toast to the vibrancy of our democracy. That vibrancy means that the candidates who lose tonight can bind their wounds and in two years meet tonight’s victor for a return match.
This is the beauty of our vibrant democracy which is more alive and well than some critics claim. Of course there is always room for improvement. Perhaps some of the naysayers and cynics may wish to help to improve our politics by putting themselves on the frontline, and in the words of Gandhi, adopted by Barack Obama, become the change they wish to see.
The Bahamas has conducted some of the more violence-free elections in the world. We threw the PLP out after 25 years, the FNM after 10 and the PLP again after five with not a gunshot fired.
Some observers have a snobbish and cynical view of Bahamian voters. Yet, voters continue to become more sophisticated and discerning than many recognize or will admit. Because most voters revel in the rallies and rhetoric of campaigns does not mean that they are not of serious purpose when weighing for whom to vote.
While voters may have concerns about certain aspects of our elections and various current politicians, they are deeply committed to our two-party parliamentary system. They are not as naive as some imagine, and appreciate the genius of our system in maintaining stability and national unity.
2010 is no more the year of the independent than was 1997, 2002 or 2007. Many believe that the duration of the men at the helm of the two major political parties is the final word on the ability of these respective parties to renew themselves.
This would be true if we enjoyed a different form of government. But at the heart of our democratic experience is a system of cabinet government with collective responsibility not solitary executive power as is the case in the United States.
Today’s FNM cabinet is significantly different in terms of its make-up than when the party was voted out in 2002. Likewise, the PLP cabinet of 2002 was quite different than its last cabinet in 1992. We have a greater capacity to renew our parliamentary and cabinet ranks and hence our political parties than many are willing to admit.
This election is an ironic example of this. In addition to Dr. Andre Rollins of the National Democratic Party (NDP) the new faces this election come from the two major parties, namely Ryan Pinder for the PLP and Dr. Duane Sands for the FNM.
Mr. Pinder is a 35-year-old newcomer to frontline politics with a professional background as a tax attorney. Dr. Sands, 47, also a newcomer, is a noted surgeon. Both candidates bring new blood and energy to the established parties.
Rodney Moncur and his Worker’s Party have been around for a long time. In many ways they are old news. Cassius Stuart of the Bahamian Democratic Movement (BDM) has been on the frontlines longer than Messrs. Pinder and Sands. Which brings us to the so-called great debate in Elizabeth.
PRECEDENT
Debates can be a useful and important part of our electoral process. But they have to be well conceived and executed. The Elizabeth debate, while a good idea, was neither of these. While it set a good precedent for the idea of debates, it set a bad precedent for how to produce and organize them.
The template for a well conceived and organized debate was designed by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches during the 2002 general election. That debate between various party leaders enjoyed significant features absent from the recent candidates’ debate organized by Wendall Jones and his Jones Communications Network.
For a debate to be successful it must be and must be seen to be run by a thoroughly independent and nonpartisan entity. Further, it must be vigorously controlled by the moderator. Perhaps rattled by Mr. Moncur’s theatrics, Mr. Jones lost control of the debate quite early, never really regaining his footing as the moderator.
To reinforce his authority and role as moderator, Mr. Jones could have designed a format which would have allowed him to ask the candidates various follow-up questions, challenging many of their rehearsed responses, inaccuracies and misstatements.
The round-robin format of each candidate simply answering the same question, with no interjections from the moderator, failed to provide listeners with the dynamism of a real debate. Indeed, the templates for many of our high school debates would have yielded more results than the Elizabeth format.
Despite the rhetoric, participating in a political debate is not a grand moral imperative for a candidate. It is a political decision. On that score Dr. Sands, without participating, did quite well in the debate.
His decision to stay out of the debate left Ryan Pinder to the mercy of the other parties who quickly proceeded to make him their main target. The PLP would have been better advised not to have participated in the debate if the FNM was not prepared to participate.
Further, the decision of Party Leader Perry Christie to attend the forum remains a mystery. It was an obvious political mistake that he or his advisers should have foreseen. It placed him in the audience on an unequal footing and unable to defend himself from the inevitable attacks from Messrs. Moncur, Rollins and Stuart.
The cutaways to Mr. Christie, his face broadcasting his displeasure with the flow of the debate, did not help his candidate. But neither did Mr. Pinder help his Leader. Also rattled by Mr. Moncur, Mr. Pinder failed to defend Mr. Christie from various attacks, most notably on the issue of national health insurance. Indeed, Mr. Moncur used Mr. Christie as a foil throughout the debate.
Drowning under the weight of attacks from all sides and constant derision from Mr. Moncur, Mr. Pinder not only failed to advance his candidacy, he also lost the debate. As a major party candidate he always had more to lose absent Dr. Sands’ participation. To have forestalled this outcome he would have needed to be an exceptional debater with considerable debate experience.
Rodney Moncur won what he could from the debate by being Rodney Moncur. He was by turns outrageous, entertaining and insightful. He had little to lose in this format and much to gain.
LACKLUSTRE
BDM Leader Cassius Stuart’s performance was lacklustre. He paled in comparison to Dr. Rollins, who though overly aggressive at times, seemed more substantive and engaged than the supposedly more seasoned Stuart. This is surprising considering that Mr. Stuart did well in the aforementioned leader’s debate sponsored by the Roman Catholic and Anglican communities.
The BDM received 75 votes in Elizabeth in the last election, which was more than the number by which the PLP won the seat in 2007. If the BDM, with its Leader contesting the seat, fail to garner at least 75 votes or more, it will be a significant failure for a party, whom many are taking less seriously. Not only is the BDM’s momentum stalling, its ideas are not as sharp as they once were.
In many ways, Dr. Rollins won the debate in terms of substance, though he did get some of his facts wrong, a potentially fatal error in a debate. Fortunately for him, his fellow candidates and the moderator failed to call him on his mistakes.
Tonight, no matter which party wins, we can all toast to the vibrancy of our democracy. That vibrancy means that the candidates who lose tonight can bind their wounds and in two years meet tonight’s victor for a return match.
This is the beauty of our vibrant democracy which is more alive and well than some critics claim. Of course there is always room for improvement. Perhaps some of the naysayers and cynics may wish to help to improve our politics by putting themselves on the frontline, and in the words of Gandhi, adopted by Barack Obama, become the change they wish to see.
Comments