NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Barbados glitters in the global spotlight with its move to replace the British monarch, becoming world’s the newest republic with not one but two women at the helm. It is an important symbolic severing of colonial bonds that have tethered not only the island nation but the region for nearly four centuries. Our proximity to Barbados provides us with not only an intimate reflection of a nation actualizing sovereign desires but also pierces the gendered ceiling on governance that is still cemented locally. But as we experience the ripple effect Barbados’ transition has on local political aspirations, it is important to reckon with the colonial root that is the Westminster model of governance.
Parliamentarians in the Lower House provided us with a stirring display of the shortcomings of our present system on Monday when a frustrated House Speaker, Bamboo Town MP Patricia Deveaux, sought to reprimand members for their conduct and establish boundaries moving forward.
The Bahamas has one of the oldest Parliaments in the world – and in its 296 years, Deveaux is the second woman to hold the office.
She was rightfully aggrieved as the day featured MPs hurling threats, pointing at other members, and openly disregarding the chair.
As an onlooker, Deveaux appears to lack the experience and confidence needed to deftly execute rulings with impartiality, and as such, is relying on the strength of her personal convictions and sense of fairness. It was clear that MPs were not behaving but the tone struck had the effect of infantilizing her parliamentary colleagues.
Don Saunders, former House of Assembly Deputy Speaker, also acknowledged there were “serious breaches” on Monday.
“There were serious breaches, certain members of the opposition acted unparliamentary but the speaker should have nipped them immediately in the bud,” Saunders said.
“Yes, she has unfettered discretion but I would identify members that made the breach, scold, penalize and even suspend but to make a general rule is impractical.
He continued: “It’s kinda early to judge her, but I think there is an aspect of personality that I hope with experience and time she’ll grow more into the seat. Does she have the mindset of being a mediator, a referee — that is going to come with experience.”
Given that the immediate past speaker, former Nassau Village MP Halson Moultrie, had his fair share of controversial, and quite frankly outrageous, statements from the chair, can we reasonably continue to chalk up our current standard to inexperience?
As political parties have five years to prepare for a shot at governance, it begs the question, why is there such a steep political learning curve, and what impact does it lend to shackling national progress?
Known as “responsible government”, the Westminster model establishes that government must be responsible and to Parliament. While this model has been effective in preserving the socio-economic status quo, it has failed to provide the level of representation necessary to effect true participatory democracy.
“My big beef with the current system,” said historian Dr Chris Curry, “is that the senate becomes a dumping ground for failed politicians. People that didn’t win their seats are appointed there. People who are important to the party but couldn’t win their seats for whatever reason get put there.
“It breeds nepotism and cronyism for party loyalists and people you want to keep politically relevant. You’re not putting the best and brightest. I prefer that position to be elected so you can take it more seriously. At present, the Senate can only delay or kinda filibuster but it can’t prevent any law from being passed. The real power still lies in the House. If they have some objection, they can’t prevent a bill from becoming a law.”
“I’m a fan of republicanism but a lot of people don’t realize there are a lot of different terms. You can just remove the Head of State and say we’re going to have a president instead but not really change the Westminster model. In the Upper and Lower House, you can keep all the vestiges of the old system and just remove the queen as the head.
Curry said: “Or you can go more radical, have real elected bodies in both the Lower and Upper House. The Upper House can be represented by each Family Island and the Lower House represented by the population.
“We need that, as an archipelago, we need better governance at the more distant and remote level. The Family Islands are not served in the current model of government.”
Curry continued: “I think we need more political will but we also need to have inspired leadership. I don’t think I’d want to look to Barbados as my example but instead look to Haiti. They threw off the chains of colonialism and wrote into law that it would never have slavery in its territory. I would prefer to gain inspiration from Haiti. I think we have the ability and capacity and think for ourselves and create the kind of republic best suited for us. There are some serious issues with American republicanism, the system in place is supposed to be a balance between state and federal government.”
A republican model that affected greater opportunities for participatory democracy could be the silver bullet needed to propel the country radically forward. Elections every two years for a head of state, and every four years for the House and Senate would not only drastically increase the level of accountability, countering corruption more effectively than legislation, but could offer women more opportunities for leadership unfettered by the hegemonic masculinity that underpins our political institutions.
It would empower the electorate and as such, sharpen and ultimately reinvent the political class.
But is there local impetus to agitate for such changes?
Shervandaze Smith, self-dubbed the “Archangel Michael”, was denied bail as he awaits trial for allegations that he caused $2,000 worth of damage to a Christopher Columbus statue. Smith was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and has subsequently been declared mentally fit to answer those charges.
Curry said: “Amongst maybe intellectuals or social activists you might have some currency but I do wonder how many people really on the ground are interested in a republic. I didn’t see any questions after the general election, and I didn’t hear the PLP talking about any constitutional changes [this term].”
It’s also worth noting that a shift to a republican model wouldn’t be this chain of islands’ first rodeo either. In the early 1700s, Nassau was governed by an informal pirate code that established a “Republic of Pirates”.
“It was pretty radical for its time,” added Curry.
“It was an egalitarian concept, the pirate code allowed persons to share loot equally amongst the crew. There were elected captains so you had democracy, and it was perhaps the only place in the Atlantic and 18th century in general that there was a modicum of freedom offered to persons of color. I’m not saying there was no discrimination but color wasn’t as much of an issue as it would become later on in our checkered history of colonialism.”
Loading ...
