The day after the day after

Elections are over. The Bahamian people have voted, and the vote was historic.It's not just that it was the cleanest sweep ever in the history of party politics in our nation. It's not just that for the first time since 2002 that any governing party has been elected by a simple majority of the electorate (i.e. over 50% of the votes cast). And it's not even that this was the first election in our history in which the sitting Prime Minister was not only voted out of office, but also lost his own seat. These are all remarkable things in themselves, but they're not the most remarkable one.

What strikes me most in this election was the independence and the power of the voters.

Several people have commented on the new government, observing, with a measure of truth, that the Pindling era is now over, but I would put it differently. I'd say that the era of the One Leader is over. Because the true victors in this election were not the Free National Movement MPs who will be sworn in and take their positions in our legislature and executive over coming weeks. The true victors on May 10, 2017 were the Bahamian people.Now, stick a pin. I've made it pretty clear over the past few months that I don't regard changing of one political party for another as any guarantee that life in The Bahamas will get better (sorry, Red Tsunami). It may feel better for a few weeks or months, but simply changing our leadership will not, and cannot, heal our nation. Electing a new party to government doesn't automatically fix the economy, find young people jobs, make Baha Mar work to our advantage, eradicate crime and violence. It doesn't even guarantee that corruption will no longer be part of our political landscape. It gives us time to breathe and take stock, but the causes of our troubles don't recognize parties in power. They come out of us, and they have to be solved by us.I've said it before: our systems are deeply flawed, and we have to strip them down and rebuild them—not once, but again and again, so that they remain relevant and robust and continue to meet our needs.What makes me hopeful about the future is not that we changed the government. It's the way in which we changed it. We didn't follow the politicians' lead; they followed the people's. We called for debates, and candidates debated. We held town halls and they came. We, the people, demanded that our politicians respected us; and those who didn't were voted away.

What's historic in this election is that we, the Bahamian people, have collectively lost our taste for being dictated to by the political elite.

The leaders of the political parties were less important than the issues we wanted addressed by our representatives: issues of accountability, of transparency, of governance, of respect for the citizens in whose place they stand. While there was plenty of leader-bashing going on, it didn't really seem to be the core of the matter. No. What seemed to be even more important was that we were looking for representatives—people who would take our needs, concerns, and worries with them when they entered the House of Assembly to form the new government.Watch this, though.

Our governing structures are not set up to deliver what we have so clearly shown that we want.

It's not realistic for us to expect that if we live in a constituency whose representative is called to serve in the cabinet, that person should be meeting the needs of the constituency as well as working to solve the very real problems of the nation. It's even unrealistic for us to expect that back-benchers can meet the needs of their constituents while at the same time they are dealing with critical legislation in the House of Assembly. So even as we're celebrating, we need to be planning how we use this euphoria to fuel the way we move forward.Because it can't all be about marching and protests, though there's power in collective voices and feet. It can't always be adversarial, us vs. them, you-for-me-or-against-me politics, whether that happens inside or outside the House of Assembly. We need to find ways to build up structures that allow for constructive dissent. You and I don't have to share the same opinion in order for us to build our society collectively and inclusively—in fact, it's better for the collective when we disagree and we have to fight our corners using reason and passion. Dissent sharpens ideals, and makes people think harder about what they really believe, and the result is better for all.I for one have no more tolerance for the politics of exclusion, whether the people being excluded are of another race or ethnicity or creed or gender or sexual preference or political affiliation or ability.

We are all Bahamians, and we all have a place in this land together. We need to start building that new country.

OK, my fellow Bahamians. It's not enough simply to change prime ministers and parties and faces in the house of assembly. We have to change the structures too. We can't stop rolling now. Let's begin building the country we want to live in tomorrow, and leave this nation better than we met it.

Counting Down to the Ballot

Under one week and counting. Advance polls opened (late and chaotic) yesterday. And the question is, who's going to win the election?

Now I've gone on record saying that I don't believe that it really matters; that none of the parties and few of the candidates who are contesting seats in this election have demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are prepared to deal with the challenges that face the nation in the twenty-first century.

But that doesn't stop me from wondering what the practical outcome of the election will be. Unlike several posters on Facebook and other social media, I have no idea whatsoever. This election is impossible to call. I know it's become popular to imagine that because the government has messed up so often and so publicly, and also because of the 21st century trend of changing governments every five years, the PLP cannot possibly be returned for another term; but the people who seem convinced of this may have forgotten, or may be too young to remember, another election run on the theme of corruption: the election of June 19, 1987.

There's something else that may also be missing from the dialogue. It's what I learned a long time ago and a long way away from here to call the zeitgeist of our era. That is, it's the spirit of the historical moment. One thing about the twenty-first century that we should not overlook is that that spirit is as global as it is local; to ignore the influence of the wider world upon this moment we find ourselves facing would be folly.It's because of that zeitgeist—the fact that we live in a revolutionary time, in a time of extreme scepticism regarding the status quo, in a time of rejecting political mores, in a time when voters again and again vote in ways that confound the pundits (think Brexit, think Trump; even think Trudeau & the Liberals if you want to)—that I find this election impossible to call. Nothing will surprise me. (Well, OK, some outcomes would surprise me more than others, but I'm ready for anything). FNM landslide? Absolutely. PLP victory? You bet. Hung parliament, with independents and/or DNA holding the balance of power? Yep, excitingly possible. DNA forming the opposition or even the government? Even this is conceivable, though it's admittedly a long shot.I'm going to walk through the options, trying to explain why I think that they are on the cards.

1. FNM landslide.
   I'm starting with this one first, because it's the most likely outcome. It's the one that the media, social and otherwise, is inclined towards. It fits the 21st century trend. You don't like a government? Vote 'em out. Replace 'em with the Other Guys.
   It also has a sort of satisfaction guaranteed likelihood. The common wisdom is that the FNM is the upright party, the party of principle, the anti-corruption party. (Never mind that recorded history doesn't exactly bear that out—witness the skulduggery of the leadership race, the receiving of the BEC bribe, the confusion/shady transparency around the road improvement project.) It sounds good. The FNM are the GOOD animals in the Animal Farm scenario. They deserve to win this one.
   And, then too, the rallies, the t-shirts, the posters, the flags, the memes. Two failed referenda. Baha Mar scandals. Rubis, Chow Tai Fook. All these seem to suggest that the country's going red. OK. But—Stick a pin.

2. PLP victory.
   We cannot overlook the eerie parallels that this election has with the 1987 election. 30 years ago, corruption was the watchword. The PLP government had been battling serious allegations of deeply entrenched corruption relating to the transshipment of drugs for nearly five years by the time the 1987 election came along, and the FNM were galvanized around that issue.
   The FNM leader, Kendal G. L. Isaacs, was a nice man and a decent representative, but he had nowhere near the charisma or people-power of his predecessor, Cecil Wallace-Whitfield. (He also happened to represent Delaporte, the seat which was the forerunner of Dr. Minnis' constituency of Killarney.)
   There was confusion regarding the voting register(s). Voters' names might be found on the register made for a recent by-election (register #1); or on the register made for the general election before the boundaries commission reported (register #2); then again on the register made for the general election after the boundaries commission increased the number of seats in the house of assembly from 43 to 49 (register #3). The country was so polarized that certain hymns could not be sung in certain churches. The FNM had boycotted and picketed the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in 1985, thus leading them to be branded by PLPs as traitors. On the other hand, the FNM was not allowed any time on local radio or TV stations for political advertising, with the result that their campaign was marketed from Florida by satellite. Despite all this, FNM rallies were drawing record crowds—so much so that the night before the general election the FNM mass rally was held in the QE Sports Centre, the largest gathering of political supporters the Bahamas had ever seen in one place.
   Everyone, FNM and PLP alike, was prepared for the FNM to do the unthinkable and win the election.
   The PLP won by a landslide—33 seats to the FNM's 16. So: a PLP victory next week is not only possible. It's happened before in circumstances very like these.

3. Hung parliament with DNA/independents holding the balance of power.
   This isn't as far-fetched as it might sound, and it's really the most exciting of all these options, IMO. People might do well to remember the interesting outcome of the 2002 elections, when no fewer than 4 independents were returned to the house of assembly (Tennyson Wells, Pierre Dupuch, Larry Cartwright, and Whitney Bastian). The PLP majority was large enough for those four independent voices to have little to no voting power (there were 7 FNMs and 29 PLPs), but to imagine that independents have little chance of winning this year would be a mistake.
   People would also do well to remember the equally interesting outcome of the 2007 elections, when the balance of power was effectively held in the house by the three former members of the CDR. To be precise: in 2007, the FNM beat the PLP by a mere 5 seats, holding 23 of the 41 constituencies to the PLP's 18. Three of those seats were held by former senior members of the Coalition for Democratic Reform: Bernard Nottage on the PLP side of the house, and Charles Maynard and Phenton Neymour on the FNM side. Although the CDR had officially dissolved by this time, it could theoretically have worked as a bloc to force through policies and legislation that came from its platform (alas for it and for us, it did not).
   So, it's just possible that in this election, with the DNA now an established political force and independents of some stature contesting seats, that the 40 39 places in parliament could be evenly or almost evenly divided, with one or two DNA/independent seats holding the balance of power. Shades of 1967, 2002 and 2012 all coming together in one exciting option.

4. DNA opposition/DNA victory.
   I'm not dreaming here. I believe that these comprise a real, if far-fetched, possibility. My principal argument to support it is zeitgeist.
   People are tired. Bahamians are tired of swinging back and forth between one inadequate and corrupt regime and another. Just as there are many people (mostly die-hard FNMs) who believe that the PLP is the root of all evil in this country, there are also many people who believe that the FNM is no better. The DNA presents itself as a viable alternative. And it's had its plan and policies out there long before the major parties got their acts together.
   But wait, you're thinking. All the DNA can do is act as a spoiler in this election. It can only take votes away from one of the parties (most assume that the DNA draws votes from the FNM, but this is without actual research and analysis). Let me stop you there. Let's turn this idea around.What we do know about the DNA is that it's a new party. Its candidates are youthful, by and large, and they come from across the traditional political spectrum. It's got twice as many women as the PLP and three times as many as the FNM. It's got some credible candidates (it's also got some duds). And it's got a reputation for attracting the support of first-time, younger voters.
   Now, thanks to the parliamentary registry and its inability to finalize the register, we cannot say with any certainty how the registered voters are spread across the generations. What we do know, however, is that first-time voters registered early in this cycle. They seem determined to make their mark somehow.
   So here's the thing. What if the PLP and the FNM in this election are spoilers? What if they split the established vote, and open the way for the DNA to get elected? Not a chance, you say. No change can be that radical that fast, you say.
   And I say: look at Brexit. Look at Justin Trudeau. Look at Trump. And look at the chaos of today's advance polls. The tell me it's really that far-fetched to imagine that Bahamians may say to hell with both former administrations, let's go for the ones with the newer ideas.
   Never say never. Don't count the DNA out just yet.

So there they are. My "predictions". I'm not doing the gerrymandered boundaries/2012 margins thing, because I don't see the point of it here. For one thing, others have done it far better than I possibly could. But for another, I know this.

There's no such thing as margins, really. All any citizen has is one single vote. To assume that everyone's vote is fixed, like a compass, on a particular outcome, is to make the same mistake that the pundits made when calling the US election for Hillary. I don't know what makes people vote the way they do, so I'm not placing my faith in any numbers/boundaries mojo. I think this election's up for grabs. Only May 10 will tell.

Democracy, ritual, responsibility, and ... (yep) spoiling the ballot, giddily

We live in a democracy. It's not perfect, but we adhere to certain fundamental principles. Like this one: individuals are entitled, even encouraged, to hold widely divergent views. The vigourous debate of those views extends and enriches democratic life.

Unfortunately, we tend to avoid that kind of debate. Rather than engaging with opposing ideas, fighting our corners and reviewing our positions based on different points of view, many of our discussions about principles and philosophy take on a personal cast. This happens most often when we wish to divert attention from an argument that we find outrageous or unsettling. Instead of engaging with the divergent idea, we prefer very often to cast "shade". Our general response to such an argument is to tear down the arguer, rather than to dive into the discussion at hand.

As someone observed to me recently, "Bahamians love shade".

And so it works.

Here's how it works. Instead of thinking further about the issue, our focus slips to the person talking about the issue, and the more we can think of to discredit that person, the more we imagine the argument has been won.

There's another name for this method of discussion. Rhetoricians call it the ad hominem fallacy, and it's a way of not arguing at all.

Last weekend, Front Porch took me to task for a number of positions I've apparently taken regarding the Bahamian political process. Now I have no problem with being challenged in an intellectual fashion. As anyone who knows me well will tell you that I find good, old-fashioned debate exhilarating. At the same time, though, I find the refusal to debate ideas by choosing to discredit the person putting forward the ideas lazy, disingenuous, and weak.

(Notice what I just did there? I dismissed the ad hominem argument in an ad hominem way. Instead of showing what was wrong with it, I just described it, using a string of adjectives. But I didn't demonstrate why the ad hominem argument is weak or lazy. I just said that it was. At the end of the day, you believed me, or you didn't, but not because of any evidence. You believed me or you didn't probably because you like me, or you don't—or else you just took the adjectives on face value. Which you shouldn't, because adjectives are very slippery, lightweight words which, in an argument, all too often say more about the person using them than about the thing they're used to describe.)

But there's a better way to argue.

Let's have a look at what “Simon” appears to have disliked about my political stances. There were a number of issues that offended. Some of them have some history to them—statements I made before the 2012 election—and some of them have a measure of currency.

Specifically, they were:

• Policy and political rallies;

• The role of minority governments;

• The role of representative governments;

• The spoil the ballot campaign; and

• The election of Bahamian Senators.

I'm going to deal with the first one, the one which stretches all the way back to 2012, in this post. I'll save the other four for another post. One which won't be quite so giddy. It'll probably be insipid instead.

Hyperbolic irresponsibility & woeful uninformation

So. Here's the first dismissal:

Before the last election, Bethel engaged in the sort of hyperbolic irresponsibility that one might expect from someone woefully uninformed. She noted that she heard nothing about policy at political rallies.

She was dead wrong.

Simon, Front Porch, "The Rituals of Democracy", April 13 2017,

emphasis added to highlight adjectival phrases

Let's see what I actually did say.

I have heard absolutely nothing from any party about what the future holds. The PLP has crafted some very general principles for the next few years, but these, when decoded, seem to amount to a reinstatement of what was in the works between 2002 and 2007 when they were in power. The FNM has focussed very much on vague generalities like “proven leadership” and “deliverance”, and what has been done, largely in material, infrastructural terms, in the very recent past ... The DNA speaks in broad terms, pushing the buttons that they feel gain them support, but not showing any real coherent ideology about which their philosophy has been crafted.

("Elections—and beyond", April 11, 2012)

According to “Simon”, both Christie and Ingraham contradicted these statements by offering "policy and programmatic ideas in a variety of areas." Well, OK. I'm going to guess Simon and I have different definitions of policy and programme, and we could agree to disagree—if that was all there was to it.

But that's not the issue at hand. “Simon” went further. Rather than focussing on the idea of political rallies, Simon chose to comment on my professional competence: "It was odd that as an anthropologist she could not, or refused to, understand the brilliance of the political rally as a ritual of democracy."

This extends the fallacy beyond the ad hominem attack into the realm of the strawman argument—because, had I been interested in the anthropological function of political rallies, I would have talked about it. For political rallies are, as “Simon” quite rightly says, an important part of political ritual. But important as rallies are, their function does not make much room for discussions of policy and programme.

Here's what “Simon” doesn't say about the anthropological approach to the ritual function served by the political rally. The ritual of the political rally uses revelry and fun to build bonds among potential supporters. When people allow themselves to be caught up in the euphoria of the moment, they engage in something anthropologists call communitas—a kind of group bonding that doesn't come from any objective similarity among the people involved or any objective coherence to what they are being told in the process, but from the collective activity they're participating in. In this situation, the action is what matters about the ritual, not the content. It engages humans at the level of the body, not the mind, and so what is said matters less than how it is said. Rhythmic speaking, call and response, catch phrases, bombastic delivery—these are what count.

In other words: had I been talking anthropologically, I would have said that the purpose of the political rally is not to offer or discuss policy or programmes. A good rally is like a party or a show; if policy or programmes are mentioned, they have to be offered in such a way that they don't break the mood. So I'll accept that Christie and Ingraham offered policy and programmatic ideas in 2012. I'm not so sure that anyone really heard them. If the rallies were successful (and they were), they were not supposed to.

My criticism was not of the lack of policy at political rallies. It related to the lack of vision anywhere in the 2012 campaign. The Plan and the Manifesto and the DNA's contract looked great to be sure, but that's not the kind of vision I was thinking about. Rather, I was looking for an articulation of the kind of Bahamas we would be living in in twenty or thirty years' time, and could not find it anywhere. I wasn't looking for it at the rallies. But I wanted something else—some online address by a party leader to outline and explain that party's vision of the future, some acknowledgement of where we were in 2012 and how we were going to change direction and move in a different one, even some recognition of the fact that we were now in a 21st century, digital world and analogue solutions were just not going to cut it anymore. And there was nothing. Nada. Except, perhaps, shuffles, sidestepping, and holograms.

As I'm being castigated not only for hyperbole but also for woeful uninformation, it might be worth looking at what else is contained in that same blog post in April 2012 from the perspective of April 2017 (the emphasis is added). If anyone is still doubtful about why, in this election, I am considering spoiling my ballot, here's what I said five years ago, almost to the day.

I’m preparing for five more years of struggle, no matter who wins or doesn’t win this election; for five more years of escalating violence in our society; for five more years of a contracting economy, traffic problems, and decreasing revenues. I’m preparing for five more years of governmental desperation, of prostitution of the country to the biggest donor (China seems to be the crowd favourite right now), of undereducation and of brain drain, no matter who wins.

("Elections—and beyond", April 11, 2012)

emphasis added to highlight the elementsthat maybe weren't quite so woefully uniformed

Five years later, those words seem almost prophetic. (They weren't; they were just the logical outcome of the lack of vision/policy/programmes that plagued the 2012 elections). Check back in a couple of days to find out more about my stellar and breathtaking ignorance. But for now, cheers. 

Seeding the Revolution: Resist the Status Quo

Bahamian democracy is too narrow in scope.1) We have one vote which must be cast for one of a slate of candidates that most ordinary citizens had no hand in selecting, vetting, or ratifying.2) Once that vote has been cast, the citizens have no means to recall the "representative". No matter what the political climate, whether we are enamoured of the candidates or the parties or not, this is true.3) Before that vote is cast, we have no means by which we can meet with prospective candidates to hear their vision, their beliefs, their commitment to the country, or their ability to respond to citizens' needs or concerns. There are no public debates and no primaries. There is no opportunity to engage in dialogue, no chance for evaluation of one's representatives, no accountability to one's constituents.4) Despite the attainment of "majority rule" the old model of governance, a system of patronage, still obtains. Candidates are less democratic representatives than political appointees who function rather like under-lords or chieftains. I do not buy into this system, no matter what my personal political leanings.#OutDaBox educates people that there can be a valid alternative. One can participate in the process while still refusing to select from the slate that is offered to one. This refusal should send the message that we are dissatisfied with the SYSTEM that obtains rather than with the party in power.We are working for a revolution, not a replacement of personnel. Corruption is always a corollary of power. What we need are valid SYSTEMS that demand more accountability.On May 10, think #OutDaBox.

Seeding the Revolution: Methods & Madness

People ask me the same questions again and again.

1. Why go out of your way to spoil the ballot—why not stay home/go to the beach?
2. What is spoiling the ballot going to achieve?
3. Why aren't you looking at the candidates on offer and considering voting for a person rather than a party?
4. If you're so dissatisfied, why don't you run/find an independent to run in your constituency?

These are not questions that are easy to answer. I've been thinking about this election for a loooonnnng time and have a whole lot to say.Several times I've started to explain them on camera. Here's one, recorded back in November 2016, right after President Trump's election. Perhaps it'll begin to give an answer.[wpvideo MQ11ozrc] 

Seeding the Revolution: Withdrawing Consent

Educated FoolishnessLast Thursday, the Out Da Box movement introduced itself to The Bahamas. Ian Strachan, Alicia Wallace and I began the discussion about spoiling the ballot as an option in the upcoming general election on Guardian Talk Radio, and (to my considerable surprise, but not to the others') the discussion took off. What madness were we suggesting? Spoil the ballot? Why on God's green earth, at this critical juncture in history,  would anyone ever think of doing something so stupid?And the discussion continued far beyond the morning show. It was taken up again at noon by the Revolution, and then at 5 on Freedom March, and it seemed to continue again into Friday, with more radio discussion on the weekend as well. Almost all of the discussion disagreed vehemently with the position that we've taken: that if, like us, you don't feel you have anyone to vote for, register anyway and spoil your ballot.The "stupidity" of the idea centred around two main points:

1. the concept that anyone in their right mind would, or should, go to the polls and stand in line in the hot sun, wasting their time and energy and patience, to go into the voting booth just to choose no candidate at all; and
2. the idea that doing this would change anything about the outcome. If 90% of the electorate spoiled their ballot, the next government would be elected by the 10% who did not, and the politicians would not care one whit about the rest.

The general refrain: this will achieve nothing, so why even suggest it?Method in the MadnessWhat much of the discussion seems to have missed about the movement is that its focus is not on effecting quick, immediate change in political rulership. Rather, it is on building citizen power.For too long, we have accepted the idea that "democracy" consists of going to the polls every five years--or, more recently, whenever a referendum is called--to cast a vote on a pre-selected slate of candidates or a pre-determined set of options. The result has been that we've developed the habit of treating election seasons rather like football playoffs--people have their teams, they wear their paraphernalia, they trash talk about the other guys. Like football playoffs too, we have evolved a binary way of looking at political options: it's an either/or scenario. And it's a spectator sport for the most part. We may study the plays and talk about them, but we do not contribute to them. The game is plotted out in the locker room, behind closed doors, between coaches and players. As with football, we seem to accept that this is the way things are done. All we do is cheer them on when we see how well they work, or groan when they don't.But democracy is not like football. Government FOR the people BY the people means, very simply, that the citizens of any democracy are in fact its governors. At the moment, we operate in a representative democracy, which means that at specific moments in time, citizens vote for the people they will send to represent them in the legislature. That's why the gallery is in the House of Assembly. These representatives are ideally supposed to be the voice of the citizens--the governors--when the time comes to make laws, and also one of the checks to the power of the executive, many of whose decisions should be reported to or ratified by the House of Assembly.The result of treating elections like football playoffs, though, means that we tend to assume that what happens in the House of Assembly is the politicians' business. We often miss the point that the politicians work for us. For a long time, we have given them too little oversight, too little direction, and they have developed a culture of entitlement, a culture of disrespect for the citizenry that is only now beginning to be checked with the advent of social media.The Out Da Box movement seeks, quite simply, to change the thinking of the citizenry. To shift the discussion away from trash talk to what it means to operate in a democracy. To recognize that a citizen's vote is the one bit of direct power that citizen has, albeit very small.We believe that there is power in withholding that vote, because democracy depends on the consent of the ruled. We recognize that withholding our consent will not change the immediate outcome of the election. We know that it may be ignored or discounted by the people who do get elected. We know that the government that is formed after the 2017 election will probably forget that they do not have the mandate to make decisions on behalf of the citizenry that they have come to expect.But showing up to withdraw our consent is the beginning of a new way of being governed. It will take more than engaging in the spectator sport that our democracy has become, but it will be worth it in the end. By showing up to spoil our ballots, to withdraw our consent to be governed, we, the citizens, will be pledging with that one small act that we will show up again and again, collectively. We will do the work it takes, as the true government of our democracy, to contribute to our legislative activity. And we will learn and exercise skills that our representatives seem to lack or to have forgotten: reasoning skills, the skills of dialogue, respect for dissent and dissenters, and the skill of constructive negotiation.Out Da Box believes that the very first step to that collective action can be spoiling the ballot--withdrawing our consent to be inadequately ruled--together. Stupid is as Stupid DoesSo back to the educated foolishness, the stupidity of the act of spoiling the ballot.

1. Why register, go to the polls, stand in the hot sun and waste time, energy and patience, just to spoil the ballot? Because WE are the government. The people we elect work for US. The fact that they hold their allegiance to their parties--their teams--above their responsibility to be the voice of the citizenry is unacceptable to us.
2. What will spoiling the ballot achieve? It is an act that citizens can take together to lay the foundation for a more participatory democracy that we have today.The fact that we take the time to withdraw our consent is a demonstration that we are going to show up for other, more visible exercises that reinforce the citizens' power.

So the foolishness of this movement boils down to one primary idea. Citizens acting together to withdraw their consent to be ruled will lay the foundation for a better, more participatory, future.

Seeding the revolution: Rethinking the vote

1) Majorities. Marching.Almost a month ago I started to write a post about the two marches being held on January 10. It didn't get finished for various reasons, none of them very good. What I envisioned for the post was a meditation on the value of both events. I wanted to recognize and honour #majorityruleday, the revolution of the past. Majority rule, for all our confusion and resistance to it today was a massive achievement in our country, one which has been overly politicized and wilfully misrepresented and misunderstood ever since it happened. For twenty-five years we revised Fawkes and Braynen out of the moment, and left the history to hearsay and memory. For another twenty we refused to acknowledge the moment in any positive, national way, for fear, I can only surmise, of offending our most powerful minority. For the past five we have been celebrating it as though it was merely the significant achievement of a single political party, ignoring the truth that some of the most vocal and active fighters for majority rule later became the founders of a second political party which was severely critical of the way in which the majority began to rule. We have never honoured the moment as it deserves to be honoured: as the first  democratic victory of the Bahamian people in their bid to gain freedom and opportunity in their own land.But I also wanted to recognize the revolution of the future. The significance of #wemarch is greater than the sum of its parts. Although we Bahamians like to imagine ourselves as a model democracy—we have peaceful revolutions,  we have high voter turnout, we change our governments quietly, and in the twenty-first century we have not yet allowed either major political party to gain ascendency over the other—we have grown dissatisfied with the limits of that democratic process. There is a growing sense that one vote every five years is not enough democracy. #wemarch is an expression of that sense, and the events of January 10, which saw two peaceful, good-natured marches taking place on the same day two blocks away, signalled that there is more than one majority to be considered. Among the majorities who found expression in #wemarch on January 10 were the majority of Bahamians who are under the age of forty, as well as the majority of Bahamians who are female. Neither majority is represented in the current House of Assembly (the average age of the Bahamian population is 30 years old, and the average age of the representatives in the House is 55; and the 13% of the MPs who are female is a poor representation of 51% of the Bahamian population who are women).2) Extending democracyMore recent events—the PLP's convention, for one, and the resounding failure of the third #wemarch initiative, last Friday's union protest, for another—have opened the door on a discussion that seeks to dismiss #wemarch as a mere  extension of partisan politics, a manoeuvre on the part of those individuals who are opposed to the current administration. There's some justice in that position. We inhabit a time when the opposition parties to the PLP government are splintering. #wemarch has acted as a catalyst for anti-government protest. The case can be made that even though the Free National Movement is the weakest it has been in a generation, #wemarch has allowed dissatisfied Bahamians the opportunity to stand together in criticism of the government. No doubt this is exasperating to the party in power, which, all its shortcomings aside, is extremely well placed for a victory at the polls this year. Small wonder that the movement is looked upon as partisan. But this dismissal misses the core point: Bahamians are tired of the limited democracy they exercise. Bahamian citizens want more—more government BY the people, less government FOR the people. There seems to be a general lack of faith that the latter is truly for Bahamians' benefit, and I suspect this lack of faith, for all its current focus on the PLP, extends to all organized political parties. To attempt to discredit the movement by suggesting that it is a power bid by its leaders is to overestimate their power over the movement, and to underestimate the energy inherent in it.The problem is, that energy is currently poorly focussed. #wemarch is an indication of a broad sense of dissatisfaction with where we find ourselves, but neither it nor the opposition parties nor even the non-party opposing the opposition has given the Bahamian people anything to stand FOR. There is, I believe, a reason for this, and it's very simple. We are out of practice. We have become addicted to strong leaders and have lost the habit of charting our own courses. We are looking, in short, for messiahs. Like the Israelites of old, we seem to want to be ruled by kings. Let them do the heavy lifting, and we will place our "X"s accordingly.But that is in no way, given the challenges we are about to face, anywhere near enough to live by.In the first place, our “messiahs” are out of touch. They are out of touch with the majority of the Bahamian people, who were born well after 1973 (the average MP was born before 1962), and who make well under the $2.5 million average in assets declared by MPs upon their election in 2012. And perhaps equally disturbing, they are out of touch with the massive global shifts that will without doubt affect the generation of Bahamians who will be hitting their middle and later years towards the end of this century.These include the shifting of global power which has been happening quickly yet subtly over the past few decades, from the Americas to Asia; they include the global environmental shifts which will threaten the entire Bahamian archipelago perhaps even before my own life is over; and they include the shifting focus on energy sources, which will be “alternative” long before most of us are ready for that moment. They are also out of touch (this time by choice) with the global conversation about human rights that has been ongoing for some time but which will become central, and more urgent, as Trumpism gains momentum.Consider this.

1. Not one politician has mentioned in any sensible, comprehensive way, what they plan for The Bahamas to do about Donald Trump’s stated intention to have his nation less involved in global affairs, more involved in its own.
2. Not one has considered how we might weather any impending domestic crisis that might be precipitated by possible radical American decisions, such as the removal of pre-clearance facilities, or the withdrawal of permission to peg our dollar to the US dollar.
3. Not one has talked about how we will respond if (or when) Trumpism leads to a tightening of all immigration laws, both legal and illegal, or how our economy hopes to absorb individuals who may be forced to leave the USA and return to The Bahamas because of new immigration policies north of us.
4. Few have discussed in any serious way how we (not foreign direct investors) can move from fossil fuel-based energy sources to cleaner, contemporary, renewable power.
5. Few have outlined a plan for the cleaning of New Providence’s air or our groundwater.
6. Not one has talked seriously about the development of our archipelago’s considerable natural and domestic resources, although many appear ready to sell these to the first bidder to come along.
7. Not one of them appears to have considered how our population of under half a million people might withstand a serious move by China, most likely the next superpower, to gain a physical foothold on the borders of the USA, for which the islands of The Bahamas are ideally suited.
8. None has truly grappled with the issue of feeding ourselves, of generating enough food to feed 500,000 for three months or more, should Trumpist isolationism tighten US borders to imports or exports abroad (unlikely, but not impossible).
9. Not one has even discussed with the Bahamian people what response our government is planning for us should sea levels rise even a fraction of the six feet predicted to happen by 2100. I am not even certain that they are measuring sea levels to test to see whether any rise is occurring today, though I could be wrong about that.

These are the issues that face the twenty-first century Bahamas, not jobs. Not tourism. Not the reform of Bahamian land tenure to allow us to sell more of our birthright to foreigners who can’t manage their own money properly. Not even (gasp, shock, yes I said it) crime, which is a symptom of social illness rather than a cause unto itself—and which, in most countries, is a problem dealt with by municipal governments rather than national ones. Yes, several may seem fanciful and apocalyptic; but they are not impossible futures. And the fact that not one politician, not one political party, not one individual seeking to run for office thinks enough of the electorate to discuss them is evidence enough for me to suggest that no political messiah is coming for us anytime soon.And so we need to enact a different kind of democracy—a different approach. Selecting candidates from one political party or another will just not cut it any more. Casting votes for the people who are offering themselves for positions is a waste of the democratic process. Once again, we need, and we deserve, more.#spoilthevote**Photograph of dead reef in The Bahamas is taken from The Climate Change Initiative of the University of The Bahamas

Seeding the Revolution: Spoiling the Vote

Elections are coming.They have to be. Constitutionally, they have to be held by the middle of this year. Between now and May, presumably, Bahamian voters will know which constituencies they reside in, who their candidates are, and what choices they will have at the polls this time.In response to this knowledge, the talk everywhere has turned partisan. The PLP convention has sparked a flurry of discussion of all kinds. People who oppose the current government have seized convenient, if meaningless, talking points like "Where the VAT money gone?", while people who support the government invoke track records and party stability.The thing is, much of this discussion is moot. No matter how much we enjoy the trash talk, only a minority of us are set to influence the outcome of this next election. Voter registration has been remarkably slow so far. According to the latest announcements by the Parliamentary Registrar's office, the number of registered voters still sits below 100,000—some 88,000 at time of writing, compared with around 125,000 in January 2012. Why this might be is a matter for another time. What concerns me at this moment is that voting for our MPs is the only way in which over 70% of the Bahamian population gets to participate directly in the democratic process. This year, about half of the eligible voters have decided to opt out of the process.This is a red flag. It signals something fundamentally wrong with our democracy. It also opens the door for an increase in governmental abuses. The less involved in the democratic process the population becomes, the less accountable officials and politicians have to be. And as of this moment, no matter what the turnout, the next government will be elected by a minority of Bahamian citizens. Minority rule, welcome back home.I'm going to propose that there is a possible solution. It's not one that will change the outcome of the 2017 election in any appreciable way. At the moment, that outcome depends on which party is most successful in getting its base out to register and vote, a simple numbers game. But it can change the measure of accountability we can demand of our elected officials. And it may well impact elections in the future.It's this. Go and register. As Bahamian citizens we have that right, and it was fought for and won by people far more more determined and principled than we are today. And then, if you're unhappy with the politicians or with the system or the country, don't fall for the least-of-two-evils rhetoric; spoil your ballot.I'll say it again. Go register. Go vote. But spoil the ballot.It's easy to do. You can mark your X outside the box, or you can write something other than your X on the paper, or you can draw a picture, or you can vote for your mother, or you can vote for your dog, or for the man in the moon.You're probably asking now: what's the point? The end result will be the same.And I'll say: Yes, and no.You won't change the outcome of this election if you register and spoil the ballot instead of sitting this one out. But you will send a message to whichever minority government is elected in May. And it's this:We are watching, we will hold you accountable. We reject the bad choices you gave us. Do better. Don't think the strategists are not watching. They are paying very close attention. Voter apathy will send the message that Bahamians don't care what they do. But a spoiled ballot, even if the counts are not released to the public, will tell a very different tale.Give me another post, and I'll explain why.

A shift into the dark?

I am not American. However, I recognize the United States of America for providing a model for democracy around the world. No, its democracy is not perfect, but it is earnest. In principle, it seeks on numerous levels to work against tyranny, to empower its citizenry. The execution of these has been far from perfect, but the ideals have been sound.There is a status post on Facebook that individuals are copying and pasting. It essentially outlines every step that the new president of the United States of America has taken since his inauguration. I do not know the sources personally, so I am taking other people's word that these things actually happened.The thing that is worrying about the list is that the majority of these cases consist of actions that are fundamentally anti-democratic, that explicitly reduce the ability of Americans to self-expression, that muzzle the right to free speech, that increase the possibility of a tyrant beginning a process of domination in a nation widely regarded as the birthplace of democracy. Further, is it my imagination, or does the turn to violence, or the condoning of state-accepted violence, have a definite fascist cast.I want my friends and family who support Donald Trump to tell me why this is not the case, please.The list is as follows: (I've changed the stars to numbers so that we can see the length of the list).

1. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the DOJ’s Violence Against Women programs.
2. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
3. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
4. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
5. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Minority Business Development Agency.
6. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Economic Development Administration.
7. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the International Trade Administration.
8. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
9. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
10. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
11. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.
12. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ.
13. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
14. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability.On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
15. On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Fossil Energy.
16. On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered all regulatory powers of all federal agencies frozen.
17. On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered the National Parks Service to stop using social media after RTing factual, side by side photos of the crowds for the 2009 and 2017 inaugurations.
18. On January 20th, 2017, roughly 230 protestors were arrested in DC and face unprecedented felony riot charges. Among them were legal observers, journalists, and medics.
19. On January 20th, 2017, a member of the International Workers of the World was shot in the stomach at an anti-fascist protest in Seattle. He remains in critical condition.
20. On January 21st, 2017, DT brought a group of 40 cheerleaders to a meeting with the CIA to cheer for him during a speech that consisted almost entirely of framing himself as the victim of dishonest press.
21. On January 21st, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held a press conference largely to attack the press for accurately reporting the size of attendance at the inaugural festivities, saying that the inauguration had the largest audience of any in history, “period.”
22. On January 22nd, 2017, White House advisor Kellyann Conway defended Spicer’s lies as “alternative facts” on national television news.
23. On January 22nd, 2017, DT appeared to blow a kiss to director James Comey during a meeting with the FBI, and then opened his arms in a gesture of strange, paternal affection, before hugging him with a pat on the back.
24. On January 23rd, 2017, DT reinstated the global gag order, which defunds international organizations that even mention abortion as a medical option.
25. On January 23rd, 2017, Spicer said that the US will not tolerate China’s expansion onto islands in the South China Sea, essentially threatening war with China.
26. On January 23rd, 2017, DT repeated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing him the popular vote.
27. On January 23rd, 2017, it was announced that the man who shot the anti-fascist protester in Seattle was released without charges, despite turning himself in.
28. On January 24th, 2017, DT tweeted a picture from his personal Twitter account of a photo he says depicts the crowd at his inauguration and will hang in the White House press room. The photo is of the 2009 inauguration of 44th President Barack Obama, and is curiously dated January 21st, 2017, the day AFTER the inauguration and the day of the Women’s March, the largest inauguration related protest in history.
29. On January 24th, 2017, the EPA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to freeze all grants and contracts.
30. On January 24th, 2017, the USDA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to stop publishing any papers or research. All communication with the press would also have to be authorized and vetted by the White House.
31. On January 24th, 2017, HR7, a bill that would prohibit federal funding not only to abortion service providers, but to any insurance coverage, including Medicaid, that provides abortion coverage, went to the floor of the House for a vote.
32. On January 24th, 2017, DT ordered the resumption of construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline, while the North Dakota state congress considers a bill that would legalize hitting and killing protestors with cars if they are on roadways.
33. On January 24th, 2017, it was discovered that police officers had used confiscated cell phones to search the emails and messages of the 230 demonstrators now facing felony riot charges for protesting on January 20th, including lawyers and journalists whose email accounts contain privileged information of clients and sources.From News and Guts*credit for compilation: Karen Cornett-Dwyer
34. On January 24th, 2017 DT threatened martial law by 'sending in the feds' to Chicago.

A little perspective

Anyone who follows this blog is probably aware that partisan political commentary of the sort we prefer is not one of the things I do. That's by design. In the first place, too many people in this nation engage in partisan political commentary, so much so that many of us believe that our governmental institutions have been set up for the benefit of political parties, rather than political parties being instruments designed to navigate and manipulate those governmental institutions. In the second place, partisan discussion is awfully predictable and is therefore ultimately circular and boring. And in the third place: Bahamian political parties -- why bother? Why waste the time and the pixels? Because what, really, is the difference among them?That said, this past week has been fascinating to me, and heartening. Heartening because it marks a change in our democracy, a point at which we are no longer taking the status quo for granted, where we are challenging the expected. Fascinating because of the amount of words and air exercised on condemning the move made by the opposition members in the house of assembly, which has been received in much the same way that heresy was once received by church fathers. How DARE the opposition members in the House of Assembly move a vote of no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition? How DARE they go against the will of the people, who so recently re-ratified Dr. Minnis as the leader of the FNM? How DARE the Governor-General ratify that vote of no confidence and remove Dr. Minnis from his position as Leader of the Opposition? NEVER BEFORE has anything like this happened in the country, the commonwealth, the world &c.,&c.Um.In an ancient episode of Charles Schultz's Peanuts comic strip, Lucy is kneeling on the ground, paying very close attention to something on the pavement. Her commentary reveals that she believes she is looking at a leaf which has fallen from a tree, and she proceeds to wax eloquent about its journey. Linus is standing nearby, suffering from a stomachache. Charlie Brown asks him what the matter is. Linus explains that the "leaf" is in fact a potato chip.  This becomes a theme in the strip, and for the next several episodes Lucy wanders around making ludicrous pronouncements on the world, while Linus and Charlie Brown look on, saying "Ow."Some of the reactions to the vote of no confidence in the House and its aftermath have left me saying "Ow". They reveal just how ignorant many of us are about Bahamian parliamentary procedure, and Bahamian parliamentary history. This is by no means the first time this kind of step has been taken, but the fact that we do not all know this highlights the gaping holes in our public and self education.Government vs Political PartiesThe first thing that hurts my stomach is all the discussion that assumes that the members of the opposition did something wrong, or undemocratic, or illegal, or unprecedented, in taking a vote of no confidence against the Leader of the Opposition. I take particular exception to the line of argument that claims that their action transgressed the "will of the Bahamian people" or the "democratic process". I can only surmise that the people who hold fast to this view make no distinction between party and government, and in fact believe (incorrectly) that political parties are the foundation of our democracy rather than one of the ways in which the citizenry may enact that democracy.To that I have two things to say.One is that democracy is (or should be) a government BY the people (or their representatives) FOR the people as a whole. Political parties are a strategy to unite various groups of people and thereby channel their power, but democracy can work equally where the members of the house of the assembly represent constituencies rather than parties. In fact, until 1953, that was the only way in which individuals were elected to the House. There were so few viable political parties that those who were able to vote voted for individual men who represented districts in the House. To this day, indeed, MPs are addressed by the names of the constituencies they are supposed to represent, not by their own names or their party affiliation or the posts they hold in cabinet. What is pre-eminent in the House is the representative nature of the people who sit there. It is true that they hold their seats as members of political parties, and that to some extent their loyalty must also accrue to the political party on whose ticket and under whose auspices they got elected. But that is not their primary function or purpose, and that should not be their first loyalty. Their first responsibility is to the ordinary Bahamian citizens of whatever stripe and affiliation who live within the borders of their constituencies. That is what democracy is all about.The other is that there is absolutely nothing democratic in the broad sense about any of the political parties that are currently represented in the Bahamian house of assembly. In fact, the legacy parties (as we are apparently now wont to call the FNM and the PLP) are, for the ordinary Bahamian citizen who is not a member of a political party, about as anti-democratic as you can get. Party decisions are made by delegates and council members, and the most powerful of these individuals are hand-picked by the leader of the party. In the third party, the DNA (correct me if I am wrong), I have yet to be exposed to any evidence that there is a democratic decision-making process; indiviuals appear to become members and representatives by proclamation of the leader or his deputy.?The point I'm getting at is this. If a person wants to go into politics to serve the citizens of The Bahamas, we have so arranged our political business that one has to join a political party. Which party one joins is really a matter of connections, personalities, or revenge. That's it. Ideology is not a prerequisite—can anyone tell me if any Bahamian political party is, or intends to be, liberal, conservative, nationalistic, progressive, socialist, or fascist? Every political party at the table has elements of most of the above, and mixes them in blissful ignorance most of the time, and when convenient the rest of it. And once one joins the political party, one has to pander to the sensibilities of the leadership, otherwise one will get nowhere. Today's Bahamian political parties have more in common with professional sports teams than with bodies committed to governance, or with implementers of policy. So all this outrage about the opposition members' action in the house of assembly rings somewhat hollow. The outrage has very little to do with what an opposition's role in a democracy should be; rather, it has a whole lot to do with personalities, personal alignments, business partnerships, and team affiliations.Here's my take on it. Like Ian Strachan, I am inclined to support no political party in the upcoming general election. How I can achieve that is a matter for another time. My personal political ideology has usually aligned most closely with that of the Progressive Liberal Party. I believe in equality for all, a liberal tenet. I believe in "progressive" ideals such as state regulation of the economy, free health care, free education, wealth redistribution through taxation, clean energy, and governmental ownership of public utilities. I privilege the public good above private profit, and do not believe that things that affect a citizen's basic quality of life (like electricity, water, inter-island transportation, healthcare or education) should be used as profit-generating avenues for any individual or group of individuals. In this I am opposed to decisions made by both the FNM and the PLP, both of whom have swallowed the lie of privatization without examination or question and are now squirming on its hook. I'm also opposed to certain pronouncements by the DNA, such as the idea that a husband is incapable of raping his wife as they are "one flesh", or the idea that Bahamians should be given the right to carry handguns at the same time as the death penalty should be mandatory for all murder. I believe in development of local talent and businesses; I do not believe in a "free" market, as free markets are usually only free to those who can afford to pay to erect their own corporate barriers, or to those who became wealthy through the use of free or almost free labour.  I believe in controlled foreign investment, in which foreign investment opportunities are designed and regulated so that they give the best outcome for the Bahamian citizenry, rather than offering the fastest, dirtiest way to a quick profit for the investor. I do not believe that foreign investors should be given concessions that no Bahamian will ever get.When last did any political party outline for the electorate what specifically they believed? When last did any political party take a stand on principle? I'm not talking about cool slogans and bright faces. I'm talking about core beliefs and  corresponding actions. You may tell me that the last constitutional amendment exercise was a matter of principle. To that I would answer that any such exercise that is not part of a wider exercise to reform existing laws that continue to create discriminatory conditions between women and men (an exercise that is the entire purview of the members of parliament, by the way) is not a matter of principle.I do not know what any party's principles are. How, then, can I make a choice come election time? How can I condemn a move that, if nothing else,  shakes up the status quo in such a way that the discussion around this question changes? No one is beyond replacement. The opposition has done an abysmal job for the past four years, and at least some of that responsibility must rest at the feet of the former leader of the oppoistion in the house. The fact that he was ratified in convention by a small group of people who have no allegiance to, or responsibility for, the ordinary Bahamian citizen is not a reason for his position as Leader of the Opposition not to be challenged. The elected members of the house had no confidence in his ability to lead them, and they replaced him. Mrs. Butler-Turner will now have to secure their confidence; otherwise they may be inclined to replace her as well. That is their right, and, perhaps one could argue, their duty, whenever the opposition (or the government, even) fails to do its job. They are our representatives, which goes beyond doing what we WANT them to do. Sometimes the best representation acts against the popular will for the wider good. If nothing else, this move has sent a message to all leaders: if you do not do what is expected of you we can and will replace you. That is one of the dangers, and opportunities, offered to the citizens of democracies.?A Brief Last Word of OpinionI have no doubt there will be many people who take offence at this post. That's their right. But I'd like to end by pointing out that the fact that I don't have a problem with the vote of no confidence means that I agree with it. They are two separate issues. I think that at this stage it was a wasted move. I believe it was inspired by sour grapes and not by the kind of principle about which I've just written. I regard it as a political ploy whose long-term outcome is more likely to bring parliamentary oblivion for those involved than any lasting change. Had the move been taken a year ago, or more, it would have been more effective, but all it reveals at this stage is a sort of selfish desperation on the part of Mrs. Butler-Turner's "supporters" that is unlikely to result in much of note in the long term. The time to make this stand would have been in October 2015, when Butler-Turner's currency was high because of the hurricane, and Minnis' was low. The convention, the challenge for leadership there, all of that, I believe to have been wasted energy. Most of all, Butler-Turner's withdrawal from that process has made this current exercise hollow; had she gone ahead and taken the licking that was coming at convention, at least those who supported her could have felt pride in the attempt. What has happened now is a personal victory but little more. We will not get to see Butler-Turner's prowess as a Leader of the Opposition, as most of the important bills have been debated already and what will come before the house in the next four months or so will not provide the opportunity to show her abilities. We will not get to see very much of (why?) Branville McCartney's ability as leader of the opposition in the senate for the same reason. What we are most likely to see is an unholy alliance of individuals against two primary enemies, and I am not sure that the government will be the major target of most of the coming activity. And in this, once again, the Bahamian people will lose.

#wemarch like flamingoes

Something has changed in the air. Today, I took part in a peaceful march from Arawak Cay to Rawson Square in Nassau. I can't easily articulate why, though. It was not a protest on my part. It was most certainly not a partisan gesture; I have come to consider Bahamian party politics (the only kind I can honestly talk about) a petty, visionless affair more concerned with personal vendettas than with any exercise of statehood. It was partly curiosity that took me out, partly the desire to see and take part in a Bahamian social movement, partly wanting to be there for myself so that I could make my own memory of the moment and not have others define it for me.But mostly it was for the expansion of Bahamian democracy. And to take a step in a new direction, to be there on the ground as we Bahamians, for so long dependent on whatever saviour-leader we can identify, begin to pick up the reins of democratic action for ourselves.For we have not been raised as a protesting nation. We have for a long time been a deeply partisan one, and successive governments run by the two feuding political parties have deepened the divisions in our society. We have for too long treated our democratic duty as little more than the right to take part in popularity contests. We've refused to analyze what has ailed our society, but have rather chosen to scapegoat and shift blame around as though we are engaged in a giant game of shuffleboard rather than the business of running a country. We have used our MPs and party affiliations as avenues for favour, and have ignored the incompetence, the visionlessness and the cupidity of those for whom we voted because of the kind of loyalties people attach to sports teams. We have used our party acronyms and colours as reasons to hurl invective at one another and somehow that has made us feel better about ourselves. And we have closed our eyes as our nation—which, though little, could be great—grows smaller and smaller and poorer and poorer in every way possible. We've been content to let it happen because we have political stability and peaceful elections and leaders we an approach and gladhand and cuss out as the feeling strikes us. But none of that has changed anything real at all. Now, I'm not saying that #wemarch today can change anything on its own. That was the main reservation I had about it: that it stood for too many things, that the list of grievances was too long, that this was a catch-all demonstration that lacked focus and real propulsion for change. I turned up and walked the route not only to be part of the march and to participate in this democratic moment, but also as an anthropologist, to observe, to analyze the moment. To see whether it was something truly revolutionary or whether it was something else, something as dismissible as some supporters of the current government have suggested. I believe that something basic has changed in the way we do politics. I am not saying that it is a deep-seated change or a permanently new way of doing things; only time will tell that. But I believe that today #wemarch inspired  :

1. A deep sense of patriotism. The march was supposed to be a silent one, and presumably a solemn one. But we are not normally a solemn people. Visitors to our country have always remarked on the warmth of the Bahamin people, something I've usually taken with a heap of salt; we are so very often angry and bitter these days. But what stuck out most about the march was just that—warmth. And a deep love for our country. The song we sang as we rounded the corner to Navy Lion Road was "March On Bahamaland"—our national anthem. 
2. The achievement, through social media, of a bottom-up One Bahamas. For many years leaders of various sorts have tried to impose a sense of unity on Bahamians, but it has been a false unity, one which has been deeply partisan—witness the golden colours that abound on Majority Rule day or the crimson ones that were linked with the One Bahamas celebrations. There was no sense of false unity today. Perhaps it was the sense of awe at the numbers of people who marched, or the even larger numbers wearing black, but there was some measure of solidarity in the marching and the occupation.
3. A sense of empowerment. I am not saying that it is not a fragile one, but it is critical. One of the things that has been prevalent in Bahamian society for too many years is a deep sense of helplessness, a sense of being out of control, of mistrust of those in power (and this goes for the FNM as well as the PLP), a sense of being out of place, being unwanted in one's homeland. Not so much today.
4. A sense of possibility. People were friendly, people were communicating, people were stepping out of their silos and making contact with people from other domains. Active and hopeful politicians were on the march, but they were almost incidental. They were following the people, which is the way it probably should be in a democracy. 

So. It was a start. For those of us talking about the revolution, this was not it: but it was the beginning of a turn in a different direction. There's a saying, or a rumour, about the flamingo, the Bahamian national bird. It's said that when one starts marching in a particular direction, the others will follow. This is what happened today. This was step one.Step two: to figure out where we're going from here. **featured photo by Rosemary Clarice Hanna

Ethnography, the view from the ground, The Washington Post, & Trump voters

No, it's not your typical discussion of numbers, etc. I'm sharing this link (I've pored over many!) because it uses the techniques we use as anthropologists to understand the perspectives of people considered to be "other". It looks at how engagement itself can become a road to empowerment. The end of the article, which quotes part of an interview with Kathy Cramer, a University of Wisconsin researcher, is the best part. It recalls the impact of the Sustainable Exuma research in Exuma, which relied on getting to know the various players as human beings as well.I'm going to buy her book, The Politics of Resentment

Thank God I was as naive as I was when I started. If I knew then what I know now about the level of resentment people have toward urban, professional elite women, would I walk into a gas station at 5:30 in the morning and say, “Hi! I’m Kathy from the University of Madison”?

I’d be scared to death after this presidential campaign! But thankfully I wasn’t aware of these views. So what happened to me is that, within three minutes, people knew I was a professor at UW-Madison, and they gave me an earful about the many ways in which that riled them up — and then we kept talking.And then I would go back for a second visit, a third visit, a fourth, fifth and sixth. And we liked each other. Even at the end of my first visit, they would say, “You know, you’re the first professor from Madison I’ve ever met, and you’re actually kind of normal.” And we’d laugh. We got to know each other as human beings.Source: A new theory for why Trump voters are so angry — that actually makes sense - The Washington Post

President Trump

It's impossible to let this day pass without writing something about this title. I let Brexit go by because, well, I was stunned; I said my piece on the Bahamian gender referendum because I was disappointed. But not to say something about this election, which was historic, yes, and not the way I had wanted, would be a travesty.So let me say this: yes, I am disappointed. Profoundly so. But can I in all honesty be anything else? I am not an American. I could not vote. I had to leave it up to the American people to do their democratic duty, and they did it. As with Brexit, as with the Bahamian gender referendum, people participated in the democratic process the one way they were able. They had one vote, and they used it. And into that vote they channelled everything that they felt about themselves, their times, their nation.I'm entitled to think that, as with us on our referendum, as with the British on Brexit, the American electorate as a collective got it wrong. The world is heading in one direction and the voters in each of these three nations have chosen not to look that way. Rather, they all turned to look behind them at the world we are all leaving behind, while time inexorably moves us somewhere entirely different. The journey forward for all of us will be taken blindly: we're looking back. We're passing through twenty-first century reality and its challenges remain unseen.I don't think that this is accidental at all. I also don't think that it could have been avoided. Because what is happening across the world is that people are voting against their status quo. They are entirely aware, on a molecular level, that things have changed, that the ground has shifted beneath their feet, that the world they find themselves in is not the world for which they are prepared. But because their leaders have been unable or unwilling to articulate these changes, or perhaps even to acknowledge them, they are voting for a return to the past, or for a maintenance of an obsolete system. In Britain, the voters sought to withdraw from the collective of Europe in search of lost (possibly imperial?) times; here in The Bahamas, the voters chose to maintain legal inequalities between men and women in an effort to negate or neutralize women's real power in our nation; and now, in the USA, voters are electing to "make America great again"—this greatness being exemplified in the shaking of a big stick, the glorification of white skins, and the subordination of the female.But in not one case were the voters given a constructive choice. I'm pretty sure that those people who, like me, wanted different outcomes will rise up indignantly at this idea. What's not constructive about Hillary Clinton/the European Union/equal rights for women under the Bahamian constitution? But in imagining these things to be positive because we believe they are, considering them unquestionably as being absolute goods, we miss the point. For democracy is not about absolute and opposite goods. It is about dialogue and discussion—about true debate. If democracy is government by the people for the people, then all the people need to be involved in it somehow.What was critical and revealing about these three contests in 2016 was that there was very little debate involved. There was plenty of talk, and a lot of argument. There was plenty of threat and plenty of ridicule and lots of tearing down but very little building up. Democracy was not at work throughout the process. These elections were crafted the way reality shows are crafted: emphasizing the extreme differences in the matters (many of them, like the bogeyman immigrant and the spectre of gay monogamy, semi-fictional inventions) for the entertainment of the public rather than engaging in the full implications of the choices to be made.  The media in each case focussed more on the sensational surfaces of the contests than on the long-term implications of their outcomes.In every case, the contest went thus:

1. an issue—two referenda and one presidential election—was fought on a national scale;
2. the stakes in each were historically critical;
3. the issues were presented in a binary fashion as though the contest was a clash between absolute good and absolute evil, without any attempt to find common ground between the two options;
4. the stakes were not discussed in any historical or global context, and the implications of potential outcomes were not presented in any thoughtful or measured fashion.

Now the critical thing about the democracy we currently inhabit is this. Ultimately, the only power an individual has comes down to his or her ability to cast a vote. We have constructed systems in which the individual voice is reduced to a single moment in time, a moment when a choice is made, and that choice, in every case above, was a choice between two irreconcilable opposites.Voters vote they only way that they can. They make a choice. But they do not make free choices. They choose the thing that seems most right to them, most right for them, but they have no control over the ultimate outcome.The collective result, in every case I have mentioned, has been a step away from equality, from kindness, from civility, from generosity. In every case I have mentioned, the result has been a shrinking of self, a turning away from greatness.It's been protectionist. It's been risk-averse. It's been desperate.It has not been great.Let me make my position perfectly clear here. I am not seeking to belittle what has happened. I'm seeking to understand it on my terms, to recognize that in every case that has dismayed me, people have used their democratic right in good faith. And they have had the absolute right to do so. That they chose differently than I would is immaterial. That they chose differently from what will help them survive in the twenty-first century, though, is critical. And it raises the question. Why did so many people make choices that will not help them in the world we are entering? What went wrong?My conclusion: it's not their choices that were wrong. It's the system that made sure these were the only choices that were available. It is a system that divides those who disagree by a chasm that seems only crossable by violence and destruction.  It's a system that suggests that "democracy" has nothing to do with self-governance for the common good, but rather consists of a battle between two demonized adversaries, in which the winner takes all and the loser is crushed.So am I happy that Trump won this election? In no way. I have absolutely no confidence that the persona that he performed on the campaign trail has any resemblance to the man he actually is, and I think that we are all, Americans and the world alike, about to be royally screwed, God's will notwithstanding. But do I think that the "American public" were wrong for voting for him? Not at all. Each individual voted the only way they could: for themselves, for what they believed was the greatest good (for them). The outcome was beyond their control.Brexit, the Bahamian referendum, the American election: it's not the voters who are at fault in any of these events. It's the way we perform "democracy" that is the problem.

Hurricane Matthew: #massivefail (2)

I'm writing this in the cool breeze and dark room of a home in an area which not only has yet to see electricity restored, but even to see any presence of our Power and Light company for blocks around.* Hurricane Matthew blew past us two weeks ago, and we have yet to return to normalcy. I am a citizen, and a patriot, and I am ashamed of the way in which our government has responded to this disaster.

Let me point to the areas of greatest failure.

1. Bahamas Power and Light

I have already criticized this company roundly on social media. Let me be very clear: my criticism does not stem from my personal situation. After the last major hurricanes to affect electricity services in the capital, we invested in the sort of generator that could withstand this kind of power loss -- a workhorse of an engine. Rather, my criticism stems from the fact that the result of BPL's ineptitude in the wake of this storm has compounded rather than alleviated the suffering and trauma experienced by the residents of the Bahamas' capital city, and it did not have to be that way.BPL has worked hard to earn my criticism. I will give props to the company for restoring power to the hospitals, the security agencies, and Paradise Island the day after the hurricane. That part of their strategy made sense, considering that Atlantis was being used by many as a hurricane shelter and a home away from home. But that is where my commendation stops.Thereafter, BPL's response to the hurricane was wrong-footed, revealing that the new managers were clearly out of their depth. In the first instance, the company was wrong to reject hurricane protocols established by its parent company, BEC. This decision left residents of Nassau perplexed and rattled, as we did not see the company mobilize and jump into action until after our first weekend in darkness. Rather than beginning as soon as the storm had passed, it seemed, BPL was wasting time "assessing" the extent of the damage. No doubt it was working feverishly to repair its own plants. But this was accomplished in utter silence, in the absence of any real communication to the customers it served and on whose money -- from our taxes and from our pockets -- it depends for its own survival.In the second instance, the communications in which it engaged after this sluggish first response were not only inadequate, but downright insulting. The tenor of the communications came off as defensive and self-serving, with frequent references to the "unprecedented" nature of this storm and the lack of adequate resources to address the state of emergency.This was insulting because while Hurricane Matthew is widely claimed to have been the strongest storm to directly hit Nassau since 1929, the reality is that the situation is more a matter of degree rather than of quality. In my adult memory, I can count eight storms which have affected New Providence substantially, six of them this century. Further, as we should all be well aware, a decade ago two of those storms devastated Grand Bahama and wiped out its power generation ability altogether, requiring the replacement of all the utility poles from Freeport to West End in 2004-5. Our legacy power company, BEC, has extensive experience in dealing with hurricane recovery within and outside of Nassau and has learned how to do it well. BPL's insistence that the impact of Matthew was somehow extraordinary rang false, and had the effect of discounting everything Bahamians have learned about the restoration of power after major storms.So while I am perfectly willing to agree that Matthew may have affected our power generation plants more than any other in recent times, and that it may have left a different kind of destruction behind, I cannot accept that BEC lacked the experience or the strategies that would allow the capital to be functional more quickly and in a more reasonable amount of time. The fact that the majority of the island of New Providence remained without light until the Sunday after the storm spoke more to the inexperience and hard-headedness of the new management team than to the magnitude of the storm. After all, Matthew sideswiped New Providence as a Category 3 storm, and the eye passed us by. The continual references to its "unprecedented" nature sounded like excuses for ineptitude.Let me support this point with some more comprehensive detail. These are the other significant storms we have weathered in New Providence in the past quarter century: Hurricane Andrew (Cat 5) (1992), Hurricane Floyd (Cat 3-4) (1999), Hurricane Michelle (Cat 1) (2001), Hurricanes Frances (Cat 4) and Jeanne (Cat 3) (2004), Hurricane Irene (Cat 3) (2011), and Hurricane Sandy (Cat 1) (2012). For Bahamians, and for Nassauvians, although the eye of a hurricane has not come this close to us for some fifteen years -- not since Hurricane Michelle, whose eye stayed over the capital for some hours -- the statement that the strike was "unprecedented" has the effect of dismissing our collective experience as irrelevant, unworthy of recognition.Let me be clear on another point, too.  Lest people misunderstand what I expect from our power company and imagine that I am judging the response of BPL to the storm solely by the restoration of power to the capital, let me assure you that I am not talking about full restoration of services here. Hurricanes bring devastation, and I do not expect miracles. I do, however, expect rationality in the wake of a storm; I expect our power company to understand the way New Providence works, and to make decisions that minimize suffering and confusion rather than ones that exacerbate that suffering.I am talking about commitment, confidence, and communication. After those other hurricanes that disrupted the capital's electricity -- primarily Andrew, Floyd, Michelle, Frances and Jeanne -- residents of New Providence were given comprehensive reports of the damage to the electrical grid, a general understanding of the scope of the repairs to be undertaken, and then regular updates about the progress of those repairs. We have come to expect this kind of respect, and we have missed it sorely this time. It is the kind of communication that allows us to understand that while it might take weeks to restore full electricity to the whole island, two weeks after those storms, the capital will function again. Schools without significant damage will re-open. Businesses will return to some level of normalcy. Traffic will move without snarls at traffic lights and many communities will have their power restored.Additionally, in those past storms, after two weeks, we all knew our electricity corporation was working for us. Crews had been visible throughout the island from the moment the storm had passed, at times even before the all-clear was given. It was understood that the restoration of electricity to as many people as possible was of the highest priority. We understood that BEC recognized that the swift resumption of power generation was critical to the recovery of the economy and of the island, and public confidence was boosted by the corporation's clear communication and a sense of commitment to the quickest restoration in the shortest possible time.I cannot say that I have confidence in any of the above this year. On the contrary: BPL has succeeded in convincing me that its primary interest lies in conserving its bottom line, in protecting whatever revenues it expected to earn from this management contract, rather than in restoring power to the people it serves in the shortest possible time. It may well have worked to restore power in the shortest cost-effective possible time, but that is not the same thing at all, and it inspires little confidence in me that I matter to BPL in any way other than the payment of my electricity bill.I resent this deeply. Unlike money which was paid to BEC in the past, this insistence on cost-effectiveness is not, and cannot be, merely to ensure efficiency. It must also be to repatriate some of the revenues earned from Bahamian pockets to the USA, where the parent company of the new management resides. Otherwise what would be the point of accepting the management contract?There may be people who will argue with me, who will take the stand that even in an emergency, money matters more than people. For the sake of neo-liberal argument, I'll give them that point, although every atom in my body screams that it is wrong. Even so, if cost effectiveness is your primary motivation, I expect a level of fiscal efficiency. If your goal is cost-effectiveness, at least achieve it with the minimal possible disruption to normal life. Even here BPL's miscalculation has been great. Its slowness and muddled strategy of restoration has resulted in the following impacts on life in the capital:

• the slow restoration of internet and cable communication, which is dependent in many cases on the restoration of electricity
• the inability of public schools to reopen as scheduled owing the continued lack of power to their surrounding communities, a direct result of the company's decision to leave the northeastern and southern segments of New Providence to the last
• the protracted power outage at the Port of Nassau, the core of New Providence's economic activity
• the continued inability of a considerable proportion of the business community to function at full capacity, as much of the economy of New Providence is still centred in and around the city of Nassau in the neglected north-eastern segment of the island, and also as a result of their remaining without cable and internet
• traffic chaos owing to the scores of traffic lights that remain non-functional in the wake of the hurricane

Even as I write this, these are the traffic lights that impact me personally that remain non-functional, two weeks in: Village and Bay, Village and Shirley, Shirley and Mackey, Mackey and Bay, Mackey and Pyfrom (Bar 20), Mackey and Madeira, Parkgate and Village. The lights at Madeira and Montrose, Madeira and Mount Royal, Madeira (Fifth Terrace) and Collins, Rosetta and Sears, Rosetta and Hawkins, Rosetta (Fourth Terrace) and Collins, Mackey and Wulff, Collins and Wulff, East and Wulff, Market and Wulff, Nassau and Meadow/Boyd, Elizabeth and Shirley, Blue Hill and Cumberland, Blue Hill and Dillet. These are not insignificant junctions. No doubt there are scores of others. These are not rural outposts, and they are not areas that can go without traffic signals for long. But they are testimonies to the way in which BPL's approach to this storm was woefully and tragically off the mark.What is more, it appears as though, contrary to a more established practice of  tackling the most difficult jobs first, BPL has left them to the last. This means that the people who were most impacted by the storm itself -- who suffered the flooding from the storm surge, who lost cars and roofs to falling trees, who lost their vehicles and their furniture and in some cases the stability of their homes -- are also those people who remain the most neglected two weeks after the storm. This has the effect of compounding their trauma and of increasing, rather than alleviating, their suffering. I am not suggesting that the damage to the electrical system that occurred in those areas should, or could, be fixed immediately. But I am saying that there is some comfort to be had simply from knowing that one's area is a priority for officials, from knowing that you are on someone's list, that you are not being forgotten. And that is what has sorely been lacking in this post-Matthew time.In short, BPL's recovery plan has appeared ad hoc, foreign, and woefully unsuited to the realities of life on New Providence. I can only conclude that what has happened at BPL -- as BEC delivered a far better service after hurricanes, even if it did not deliver much in the way of service day-to-day -- is that the new managers have come in with their own way of doing things, and disregarded protocols that have been in place for decades. (I am only speculating here, and my speculation is fuelled both by rumour and by a deep bias against the outsourcing of any essential utility to an external company, so take this part of my criticism with the appropriate dose of salt.) I suspect, however, that the new managers discounted the institutional and local knowledge that allowed BEC to function to this point, given the decrepitude of the plant and the chronic misallocation of funds it has suffered for decades. I suspect that the new managers instituted their own post-hurricane protocols instead of considering the value of those that have been tried and true -- to their detriment. There were babies in that bathwater, as we have all found out.There is very little in the way of mitigation that can be had at this stage, but there are some things that can be done.One of the areas that stands out most glaringly about BPL's non-handling of this crisis is its persistent refusal, apparently, to offer any rebates to its customers in this difficult time. Not only have the press conferences that I have heard mentioned cost at every turn, BPL -- unlike every other public utility company in the nation  -- has insisted clearly that they will continue to bill their customers for their services and that they will continue to disconnect those customers for non-payment of their bills.Come again? Is BPL the only agency in this country to emerge without loss in the wake of this hurricane? Is the right to repatriate profits more important than the ability of Bahamian citizens to recover from the storm? Is BPL oblivious to the ways in which it has compounded the suffering and slowed our recovery? Are we expected to pay for this massive failure?Words massively fail me here. The only thing I can do is to call upon the bosses of BPL, the politicians we have elected to manage our nation, to demand that some other arrangements be made, to demand that BPL recognize its contribution to our suffering and to at least consider offering reduced bills to those who have been without power for longer than seven days. Something concrete, something tangible, must be exchanged for the frustration, confusion and inefficiency that we have experienced from BPL over the past two weeks.What I would also like to see now is some humility in the wake of this disaster. At the very least, I would like to see the new managers learn something from this experience.They should learn something about the Bahamian people -- that we expect better than they have given us after this hurricane. They should learn something about the expertise that they met in the corporation that they were contracted to manage -- that perhaps local expertise is worth listening to, worth making room for, worth promoting. They should learn something about going into another country armed with the assumption that they way that they do things elsewhere may not be the best way, may not even work if transplanted. And they should learn something about basic communication. The provision of electricity should be divorced from spin. Tell the truth, tell it fairly, and gain the confidence of your consumers. Try to confuse us with numbers and percentages and mumbo-jumbo of the American kind, and worse, charge us for it, can only yuck up our vexation (Eng. translation: raise our ire).That is all.------

*Edit: the very night I wrote this post, the trucks came. They appeared in the neighbourhood by threes. One car, three trucks. 14 days after the hurricane. But the restoration of power was not as easy as that. By the time this publishes, it may have been achieved, but for now: we're still in darkness. [Back]

After Hurricane Matthew

(Sunday) I'm listening to a long and somewhat rambling address to the nation regarding Hurricane Matthew and its impact. Apart from having confirmation that this was the worst hurricane in almost a century to hit New Providence, there is not a whole lot of information that I have not heard before or that I cannot figure out for myself. If I were marking the presentation, I would deduct points for its being long on narrative and description and short on analysis and evaluation. We are being told what we pretty much already know: there was a lot of rain, there was a lot of wind, there was some severe damage, many people were impacted, some are homeless, there are a lot of infrastructural challenges, the governmental agencies are working. What we are not being told (for the most part) is what to expect in the days and weeks to come, or how to pull together to make things better. We are not being inspired; we are being talked at.(Monday) What I would have preferred: a short, concise address by the Prime Minister (as the leader of the nation), providing some basic statistics about what happened, the extent of the damage, and where we are in addressing the damage, letting us know what the government has done and what it has yet to do, giving concrete suggestions about how to deal with the aftermath, perhaps telling us that NEMA has set up specific centres where people can report to get updates. All the rambling and thanking of God and repetition of what everybody else said  was, ultimately, a waste of my good time and data. And after all that, I don't remember any phone numbers or email addresses or physical addresses being given so that people can find out specific information about their specific issues.I do not normally complain about governance. I have been involved in governing and have been in a position to have to make decisions that affect a large number of people and I know very well how difficult it is. That said, I also know that it does not help anyone's issue to simply ramble on telling people what they can see plainly for themselves. In the aftermath of such situations, citizens want answers. Citizens want reassurance that the people whose job it is to serve them are on the ball. I think that the best parts of last night's press conference were the presentations by the RBDF, the person responsible for clean-up, and the Minister of Education, who gave a fairly comprehensive report on which schools would be open tomorrow and which would be closed, and what the Ministry's concerns were. At least I know a little more about what I can or should do tomorrow. Though why the presentation on education (which affects all of us) should follow an update on tourism (we are not tourists in our own land) I cannot comprehend.Here's what I would have liked to have seen:

• BPL telling us how and when to get updates, specifying the problems area by area, and giving estimates about how long each area might anticipate being restored. Also, it seems a little odd to me that areas that are rich in self-generating power (like Charlotteville and other relatively affluent areas) have had their power restored while others who are entirely dependent on the grid for their power are still without it. I would have preferred to see some kind of triage regarding the restoration of power that restores supplies according to need rather than according to wealth. What could be done for those people who are self-generating is the formation of teams of technicians who could supply maintenance and access to fuel for private generators so that the concentration could go on areas of the population who are most in need.
• BTC telling us the hours of operation of BTC offices around New Providence so that people could charge up their devices. Oh, and, instead of a $5 rebate, an offering of provision of data free or seriously reduced cost for those citizens who remain offline.
• The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance roundly condemning price gouging practices anywhere and at any time, decreeing that customs duties and VAT will be waived on everything for everyone for a set period of time (say one week or two to start with, and then for a longer period of time according to need), and then the crafting of legislation rather than policy that sets the standard for disaster response going forward.

I could say more, but then I, too, would be guilty of rambling. Let me just end right now by thanking all the staff of every single agency for all their hard work, and thanking God for being God.On a more personal note: Matthew updates 2 and 3 below.[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwh8IkbekEs][youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRGdwgVVKoc]

Facing the eye of the hurricane

Well, Hurricane Matthew's on his way. I am too tired to type right now so I made a video to let you know what's going on. This is the last thing I'm going to do in my home office, which is battened down like the house, before the storm hits. Am shutting down the computer, covering it with plastic, taking the hard drives, and going into the house.[embed]https://youtu.be/s2dXcNNgCeY[/embed]What really made me sit up and take notice, though, was this report from Weather Underground. Looping round? Oh heeeyyyyaaaalllll no.See you on the other side of the storm.

Li(v)es that matter

Last week, following the exchanges that were taking place on travel advisories to the USA, I felt I should weigh in. I didn't. The issues at hand seemed too big, too heavy to lift. And the discussion felt too old, the way in which it was moving too predictable. It's as though all our arguments have worn two or three deep and well-trodden channels in the landscape of possibility, and whenever we approach an issue, whatever that issue, they fall into those grooves.But those grooves don't lead us anywhere new.Here are some of the things I was thinking I wanted to write last week.

1.  I admit it: I was proud that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a travel advisory for the USA. I do not regard it as frivolous, although I fully recognize that there was in all likelihood a sense of smug comebackery in its origin. It is dead serious, and here's why: black Bahamian men who rarely if ever get stopped by police here in The Bahamas and who have never been personally menaced by the "criminal" element here at home have been, and are still, routinely stopped in the USA for that violation commonly known as DWB (Driving While Black). For the most part, these men are professional, middle-aged, and "respectable" (whatever that means), and several of them have told me that they do not intend to travel to the USA anytime soon.
2. I also admit it: I caution my students and young Black Bahamian male friends and acquaintances, who are not professional, middle-aged, or conforming to the "respectable" check box, to exercise caution when:
   1. Going out on the streets of Nassau at whatever time of the day
   2. Driving anywhere there might be police stops or roadblocks, as young black men in Nassau are NOT immune to police brutality
   3. Being in any place where an altercation is likely to break out in Nassau, as the potential for being harmed or even killed as so-called "collateral damage" to the high interpersonal violence that plagues our society.

As Christian Campbell has astutely observed: one does not cancel out the other.  We can chew gum and walk at the same time. Both can be, and are, deadly true. We have a problem here in The Bahamas. But that does not mean that the USA does not have an equal problem. That does not mean that the travel advisory is petty or irrelevant (even though pettiness can certainly be identified in its issue). And that does not mean that living in the Bahamas is at all safe. The issues at hand are different and the same, all at once.Different, because the places are different.The same, because the origins are linked.It is no accident, I believe, that the USA has by far the highest incarceration  rate in the world, or that African Americans constitute the largest percentage of those incarcerated (or that, in terms of overall populations, more African-Americans per capita are incarcerated than any other ethnic group in the USA). Nor is it an accident that the Caribbean the highest murder rates in the world (or that Latin America is not that far behind).What we who live in this region of the world persistently and critically overlook is the fact that our region was built on the twin evils of genocide and slavery. Forget the fact that it is arguable (though probably not supportable) that the people engaged in those two evils were unaware of the magnitude of the wrong they were doing. Their intentions do not matter. What matters is what they left behind: a system throughout the Americas that was designed to subordinate and dehumanize large numbers of people, while at the same time it protected and enriched other groups.It is no accident that the American debate on the right to carry firearms is highly charged and usually linked to the question of individual and personal safety—guns are considered instruments of protection for Americans—but protection against what? Against whom? I would argue that the settlers throughout the Americas have always seen themselves as being under siege (and, let's face it, when you steal people's land and enslave people's children, maybe you are indeed under siege). And so they created settlements, towns, cities that were legal fortresses against the dangers they perceived. The second amendment, while originally written to defend the right of the settlers to self-governance, very quickly became the right of the invaders to defend themselves against the displaced, and then the right of the oppressors to defend themselves against the oppressed. When you look closely, the right to bear arms can be decoded as the right of white Americans to bear arms. It's the settler mentality, and it is part of the legacy of the frontier, the legacy of native "pacification", of African forced labour.  The very foundations on which the so-called "New" world  rest have already decided which lives matter, how much, and for how long.Which leads me to this. You cannot build a society on egregious violence and expect to live in peace. You can cocoon yourself. You can, if you are a member of the groups which were traditionally protected by the webs of laws and prisons from the dangers that your founding economic and social systems created, imagine that life is fine and smooth and comfortable. But it is not. Your personal safety, and mine, in fact depends on a social structure that is inherently violent, inherently inhumane, inherently built on the idea that all lives do not matter.So until we face these facts and recognize that we must systematically dismantle all of the pillars on which our post-genocide, post-slavery American societies were raised, we cannot hope for peace in this world. And as Erin Greene has suggested: one way we can begin that dismantling is by instituting reparations for those wrongs.But that is another argument for another time.---Featured image on this page Remixed by Chris Ritter using Paper by Fifty-Three.

Love, Hate, Democracy and Christianity

Bahamian pastors, I have a question for you. What did you preach about yesterday? It's the first Sunday since the referendum, so I imagine that many congregations were engaged in praise and thanksgiving for the Bahamas' rejection of changes to the status quo that might allow for gay marriage. But it was also the morning of a massacre. Did you preach about that?If you did, was Christ your example? Did you, in your rejoicing, spare a thought for the families of the 50+ dead in Orlando? A prayer? Did you lead your congregations in prayers for the wounded in Pulse nightclub, or did you (God forbid) offer a prayer of thanksgiving for the shooter?These things matter. I'm asking because we are responsible for the stands we take. We're responsible for both the positive outcomes and the negative ones. We can never know how our words will be taken when we utter them, and when they leave us, but that does not make us any less responsible for them. Words are not children; they do not have consciences of their own. But they do have consequences.A choice was made by a significant proportion of the Bahamian Christian community during the lead-up to the Bahamas referendum. It was a choice I did not understand, and a choice that I would not have made myself. As a result, significant portions of the discussion that surrounded the referendum focussed on a "gay agenda" that had to be defeated at whatever cost—even the cost of not affording equal rights under the constitution to Bahamian women. When challenged, many of the people advancing that position insisted that their stand was not against individuals. Christians love homosexuals, they said; it is the homosexual lifestyle they do not love. For the sake of argument, I will accept that position, though I did not see a whole lot of love being shared. I didn't see too many pastors sitting and engaging with Bahamian gay rights activists, or embracing members of the Bahamian transgender community. I heard a lot of aggression and a lot of judgement, though. Plenty wrath. Not so much gentleness.Well, on Saturday night, a real blow was struck against the "gay agenda", and it was struck with bullets and with blood. More than fifty homosexuals were removed from this world by a man who was taking his own personal stand against their "agenda". Now I am in no way linking that shooting directly to any Bahamian Christian. I am well aware that the shooter was an Afghani-American. But his intent seemed all too familiar here in The Bahamas. And some of the responses appearing in Bahamian social media—which rejoiced in his actions, which threatened the same here—sickened me.Hence my question. Pastors, what did you preach about yesterday? Did you remind your congregations that, no matter what your stand in principle about same-sex marriage and homosexual lifestyles, the slaughter of actual human beings was wrong? Did you remind them of Jesus' words about judging others, about turning cheeks, about loving neighbours as yourself? Did you condemn in advance the outpouring of hate that was certainly about to come from people who used your stance against the proposed amendment to justify their personal homophobia? Did you, in short, accept responsibility for your position on the referendum, recognize the links between yesterday morning's shooting and that position, and work to explain the difference between a principle and an action? That your call to righteousness is not a call to murder? That the freedom of speech, of expression, or of opinion, are not the same as the freedom of action? That the shooting of people in a nightclub catering to LGBTI people is certainly not what God is calling His people to do? And beyond that, what have you written about it? Where are the words that you will use to help heal this hate? I am not condemning the position you took on the referendum, though I disagree with it, and was saddened by it. We live in a democratic society, and democracy guarantees you the right to hold and defend your personal convictions. But that right comes with responsibility. You are responsible for the words you used in this fight. I am holding you responsible for the words you will use from now on to spread the love of Christ, as well as judgement. You are our pastors. You can lead us astray, or in the paths of righteousness. I'm waiting.PS: Check this out.