Voting... based on what?

Every evening I drive past a golden Jaguar convertible, parked at Montagu Beach, and I cannot decide whether this modest vehicle is supposed to mobilise the proverbial Bahamian grassroots voter, or whether the choice of vehicle is an attempt to speak the language of the well-to-do Out East Folk on their way home to Winton and Port New Providence. Whatever the case, elections are obviously just around the corner.

I wanted to write something about the upcoming elections, but I find it rather difficult. One reason is that there are our three parties, which so clearly lack programmatic or ideological differences, and a golden Jaguar convertible turned into a political ad for a so-called progressive and liberal party pretending to fight for the interests of the lower strata of Bahamian society is the perfect illustration of this sad state of affairs.

Tap is on to something, you know. There is a core of voters loyally dedicated to one party or another for no apparent reason. At least for no apparent political reason. There is also a good chunk of voters who will sell their vote for either a turkey and Xmas ham (cheap) or fridge/washer/flat-screen TV (not so cheap), depending on how well-funded and/or desperate a candidate's campaign, and how good a negotiator the voter in question.

That leaves a small percentage of voters who actually make up their mind, every five years, and who swing the vote. But based on what? Technically speaking, we vote for individual candidates, not for parties, who run in our respective constituencies. But do we actually give a damn about these individuals? Do we expect these MPs to represent their constituencies in the House of Assembly? If necessary against their party's line? We might wish they would, but we are disillusioned enough to know that that ain't gonna happen.

As a result, we vote for candidates because they represent a particular party, and we want this particular party's leader to be the next Prime Minister. Either because we think Hubert/Perry/Bran is just plain fabulous, or because we hope to gain some advantage because it's the country of Who You Know, or - and this is usually the case - because the past five years went reasonably well (in which case governments get reelected), or because the past five years were a disaster (in which case the incumbent loses).

What this really means though, is that we do not even vote for parties, rather, we simply evaluate our own experiences over the past five years. Or less, as our memories tend to emphasise the recent past over the distant past. And we evaluate the experiences that were influenced by government actions, as well as those that were out of the government's control.

It's not looking good for the FNM:

• In 2011, the murder rate increased by 35%. (Short term memory item #1.)
  
• The roads are, still, a nightmare, and while nobody denies that the roadworks were/are needed, digging up the whole island at once is really shitty planning.
• No visible progress has been made in the field of education. (I actually have my doubts if Joe the Voter cares about this one.)
• Since the 2008 international economic meltdown, we have seen painful inflation in the Bahamas, but stagnating salaries.
• That is, if you still have a job and a salary.

To counter this, what is the FNM selling as success stories of their administration?

• A new airport terminal, which nobody really remembers (long term memory loss, see above), and which, in all reality, is actually woefully inadequate.
• A new Straw Market, which I personally consider an eye-sore, and the opposition is busy convincing us was a waste of taxpayer money.
• Unfinished roads.
• Gun courts? [Imagine an app in this space that automatically updates the country's murder count.]
  

Their hope is the DNA. If it fragments the opposition vote more than it hurts the government vote, it may just be enough for Papa to hang in there another five years. Maybe.

Regardless of the outcome, though, it is unlikely that there will be a change. Certainly not for the better. There are just too many flaws, some rooted in our system, some in our society. Changing the latter is a generational task, tuning the former, however, might yield some surprising results within one election cycle. Proportional representation would enable smaller parties to enter the political arena, some of them may in fact offer genuinely different politics. It would certainly make our democracy more inclusive. More attractive.

And even small inroads such third, fourth or fifth parties may make, would certainly result in the established parties being forced to make more of an effort. Or is that why the Progressive Free Democratic Liberal National Parmoveliance will never consider the move towards proportional representation?

Lizzie's Lesson

As Hubert had already pointed out, the by-election in Elizabeth would not change the government of the Bahamas. It had been an opposition seat, so it would only be a question of whether the FNM could increase their majority, or whether the PLP could retain its size in the House of Assembly. And forgive me for not going into any detail about Messrs. Moncur, Rollins and Stuart, even though the votes they managed to get may have very well determined the outcome of this by-election, given how close the counting is at the moment (Sands/FNM 1,501 vs. Pinder/PLP 1,500).

In fact, in discussions I have often made the argument that a viable third party in the Bahamas must be formed, not with any hopes of actually winning an election, but with a thoroughly thought through agenda that will threaten both the FNM and the PLP enough by creating a scenario where this third party could take a sufficiently large number of votes away from either party to turn formerly "safe" seats into contested seats, thus forcing both established parties to focus more on their primary duty: to serve the Bahamas and its people.

However, yesterday's by-election illustrates how far we are from being a mature democracy. First and foremost, I was irritated by the ignorant babble on ZNS, where veteran politicians demonstrated how little integrity and understanding of how democracy ought to work they possess. The number of voters who didn't bother was higher than the number of votes cast for either candidate, and one commentator had the audacity to tell the audience that in most Western democracies a turnout of around 60% would be considered huge. No, it wouldn't. Only in one Western democracy, the U.S. of A. Everywhere else this would - rightly - be reason for concern. (And don't even get me started about all that garbage about the "Westminister" [sic!] system of government...)

So, what happened in Lizzie last night?

1. We saw a by-election at a time when the Bahamas is suffering through a severe economic crisis, at a time when crime spirals more out of control than it was at any previous out-of-control stage.
2. Outside of the by-election hype, even most staunch FNM supporters I know would concede that they are less than impressed with the government's do-nothing attitude.
3. We are talking about a seat held by the PLP as recently as 2007.
4. The FNM candidate showed his disdain for the voters, not by pointing out their alleged greediness, but by refusing to participate in the pre-election debate.
   

These are four reasons that in any mature democracy would have worked against the FNM, and would have been enough to secure a comfortable PLP win. Not so in the Bahamas, and even if the recount puts Ryan Pinder before Duane Sands, this is too close to make sense.

Pinder's problem may have been the issue of his dual citizenship. It is rather ridiculous that we suffer from such a major inferiority complex that we hold it against a man that he has a foreign mother. More mature democracies have many a politician with a migratory background and more than one passport. Yet, Pinder even renounced his U.S. citizenship before the election, which should have satisfied the skeptics right there.

The reason why the FNM polled so strongly in Elizabeth is because we are not a democracy. When Bahamian voters know that their vote won't change the government, they tend to vote for the governing party, because they fear that otherwise their constituency will be victimised.

Fear of victimisation, however, has no place in a democracy. Bahamians too often make the mistake to equate democracy with majority rule (and I am *not* talking about 1967), because our politicians operate along the lines that when their party has the majority, it is their country. They then make decisions and implement policies that benefit their clientele at the expense of the minority.

However, democracy by definition means that compromises are forged that ultimately benefit as many people as possible and jeopardise as few as possible, preferably none. Government by the people, for the people. All the people. That is precisely what we do not get from our politicians. We live, sadly, not in a democracy, but in an ochlocracy instead.