It seems to have shocked government officials and education administrators that 20 percent of teenagers have attempted suicide and 25 percent have considered suicide.

Teenagers who are struggling through the days of a high school that is not responding to their learning needs and hearing the national ridicule of them and their supposed inability to perform at the academic standards required. Teenagers who are responsible for their younger siblings and, in the absence of appropriate public services and support mechanisms, must take them to school, pick them up from school, prepare meals for them, and help them with their homework.

Teenagers who are preyed upon by adults, sexually assaulted, and blamed for the violence they experience. Teenagers who are forced to participate in crime lest they become victims of violent crime, then are characterised solely on their criminal affiliations and activities with no consideration of the the failure to prevent or intervene.

Teenagers who are bullied at school and either get no support from adults or never bother to report it because their first bullies were adults. Teenagers who are forced to work in order to meet the basic needs of their households, and are harassed, disrespected, and dehumanised at work, whether by employers, employees, or customers.

Teenagers who cannot participate in extracurricular activities because of cost barriers and/or the adult responsibilities they must shoulder. Teenagers who are harassed by people in positions of authority, including police, just because they are young and visible.

Teenagers who are experiencing changes in their bodies and their moods that they do not understand and for which they are punished. Teenagers who witness violence in their homes every day and live with the fear that they will one day return home and find a dead parent/guardian/sibling.

Teenagers who cannot identify a single adult they trust to listen to them and help them through a difficult situation. Teenagers who do not have access to mental health care and are, instead, told to pray, made to go to church, and/or sent to untrained or undertrained “counsellors” who cannot give them the support and tools they need to navigate the challenges they face.

Teenagers who struggle with addiction. Teenagers who are abused and told it is discipline. Teenagers who are beaten by adults who use them as punching bags on which they unleash their frustrations. Teenagers who carry the stress of “holding” illegal substances and weapons for people who have power over them. Teenagers whose homes are less safe than the street. Teenagers who can barely sleep at night. Teenagers who are keeping secrets no one should have to endure, much less refrain from ever speaking, preventing them from getting help. Teenagers who put their lives on the line in various ways that are ignored anyway.

The realities of young people are often ignored, sometimes discussed with complete detachment from the people involved, and almost never acknowledged — a requirement for appropriate intervention to take place.

Generalisations about young people are publicly made with little challenge. They are seen as unintelligent, troublesome, ungrateful, and even deserving of any misfortune that befalls them. They are well aware of the assumptions made about them, the accusations made against them, and the general sentiment toward them. Some of them even know that they are not all having the same experience, and that their race and class make a difference.

It is difficult for adults to understand themselves as having value and being worthy of love, care, and life itself. How much more difficult must it be for young people for whom even the shortest encounter is magnified and can feel devastatingly insurmountable?

Schools may now be focused only on academic development, but that is a missed opportunity and an injustice to the people — the children — it is meant to serve. School should not be a place for children to be spoon-fed information in order to regurgitate it while being molded into robots that do as they are told in order to be easily controlled when they enter the workforce. It should be a place for them to engage in learning, through the delivery of the curriculum and interactions with the people around them.

Children, including teenagers, need to connect with one another. They need to connect with their teachers. They need to learn to navigate relationships, to build trust, to identify unsafe situations, to work through disagreements, and to recognise the difference between what is normalized (and unsafe) and what is actually a normal situation or behavior.

Schools are a critical site for intervention. This is where irregularities should be most apparent. Teachers and administrators should notice the state of children’s clothing and hygiene. They should notice changes in patterns of attendance, behaviour in class, homework delivery, and testing. They should understand that the interest and effort of the child is not the only factor involved. Which children are sleepy? Which children are hungry or undernourished? Which children are showing signs of stress, anxiety, or depression? Signs that a child needs help can only really be investigated when there is a real relationship and trust exists so that the child can honestly answer questions.

Emotional intelligence needs to be a part of the curriculum, and it needs to be an area of focus in professional development for educators. All teachers and administrators need to be able to empathise with children. They need to be aware of their own beliefs and biases, and they need to know how to regulate their own emotions. They need to truly care about the children who are in their care, and help them to develop the skills to recognise their emotions and talk about them. They need to be trained in suicide intervention.

Children need to feel safe enough to share what is happening, especially when there is a chance that they will feel embarrassment or they fear that they will be punished for telling the truth (which may be framed to them as “private” or “family business”). Building this level of trust takes time and intention.

Children need to know that there is help available for them. If there is a free breakfast program, they should know where and when to go, and it should be easy to access. If there a mental health professional on staff, they need to know how to find them. They also need to be aware of the Department of Social Services and what can be accessed there. The assumption cannot be made that parents/guardians know or that they will initiate necessary processes.

Sometimes children are considering suicide because their lives seem untenable. Living does not seem worth it. It could be that they do not have the support they need. It could be that they think they are making life difficult for their parents/guardians. It could be that they are struggling to manage strong emotions. It could be that they need ongoing mental health support, without judgment. Life is not easy for all children. There are challenges they face, and many of them try to face them alone.

We need to ensure that the children in our lives know that they can safely talk to us and that we will help them through anything they are experiencing. Parents/guardians are not always able to provide all of the support that children need, and they may not notice that something is wrong. There are many reasons this could be the case, and there may be the desire to cast blame, but first, focus on the children. It is not their fault. As long as there are other adults in their lives, they should have attention, they should receive care, and they should be given the access to the resources and services that are life-affirming.

The statistics have been shared. The shock should have worn off by now. The concern should still be there. Action is needed. Mental health needs to be a priority. The curriculum needs to respond to the needs of the children, and educators need to acquire the skills to do the same.

Published in The Tribune on July 17, 2025.

The next general election is just down the road and around the corner. The current administration is making promises and already signalling the need for more time to “continue” its work and the opposition is pointing fingers and asking questions. Political parties are starting to reveal their candidate slates as rumours about who will stay, who will go, and who will be newly nominated fly around.

Power struggles within political parties are coming to the fore. The media is in a state of perpetual readiness for stories of all kinds and sizes as it relates to internal political party issues, lambasting of one party by another, candidate announcements, and the possibility of an early election.

Partisan politics in The Bahamas is, by design, an absurd theatre that piques curiosity even in its monotony and predictability. Politicians are current and prospective employees of the Bahamian people. When they seek employment, they sing and dance, sing and dance, sing and dance.

Empty promises flow from their mouths with boring, repetitious, uninspiring rhetoric until they resort to name calling and lobbing accusations at others, punctuated by catchphrases and snippets of music that do nothing more than make people laugh. The employers are seated in the audience, eyes glued to the stage, watching the performance. Casting was done without their input. The stage was already set. All they can do is spend money at the concession stand and mindlessly eat and drink as they watch the show someone else selected.

Some audience members wonder what is going on backstage. Who wrote the script? Who is directing the cast? Why were these people even cast in these roles? Some notice the dark corners of the stage and try ‘to see what is happening where the lights are dim and the view of some performers is obscured. There is little room, it seems, for participation. Employers watch the show, waiting for the breaks between acts to discuss, make predictions, and argue with one another about the meaning of it all. Only when the show is over do most of the employers take their positions, ready to decide who will win it all with a single review—the vote.

When they are hired, the employees lose interest in pleasing their employers, even at the most basic level which, in our case, is putting on a show of dedication to the work that the employers—the people—want done. They take to the stage when it suits them, regardless of the presence of a waiting audience. The frequently show up unprepared, some never having attended a single rehearsal. It sometimes becomes clear that the employees fail to work together backstage before attempting another one-way engagement with audience. They sloppily deliver unplanned monologues and are thwarted by simple improv activities. They show that the backstage coordination is often nonexistent. They reveal their arrogance in their insistence on being a part of the performance, regardless of their levels of preparation. The stage, they believe, is theirs.

Once the prospective employees secure their positions, their already inadequate engagement with employers exponentially worsens. The performance required to get the job has depleted them, not only of energy, but the ability to pretend to care about the experience of the audience. If they sit in the theatre, in complete darkness, so be it. It is their own fault for expecting a show. The season is over. They should be grateful for the amateur hours that, from time to time, make use of the theatre space.

Politics can certainly take another form. There is the potential for the people, the employers, to reclaim power. It is entirely possible for the current and prospective employees to be held to a higher standard.

The existing system is dysfunctional. The existing practices disadvantage the people. Politicians see themselves as performers in a play, and they have no motivation to change the way they play their parts, much less commit themselves to affecting the reality that sits just beneath the fiction they use as cover. We, the people, know, to varying degrees, that what they see as a bit of fun amongst themselves is actually our lives. Allowing them to write the script and cast themselves and people like them is acceptance of ill fate.

The people vying for our votes are not leaders, and they are not trying to be leaders. They are satisfied to pretend. The fact is that we need representatives. One of our greatest struggles is that the people who get our votes—almost exclusively because we reject the people or the associated party running against them—do not know, care about, or ask us about the issues we face daily and need to have addressed. They do not live in our neighbourhoods. They seem to drive on different roads, present at different healthcare facilities, and send their children to receive a different quality of education than that which is available to us. We have to admit the self-governance and majority rule are not what we have when the people in parliament are not, in fact, like us. Worse, they prove, repeatedly, that they have no interest in even knowing what it is like to be us. If they did, they would engage us in the processes that have already begun ahead of the next general election. They are still more than comfortable with making a series of decisions with no input from the people directly affected by them, then turning to us with a singular question: This set of actors, or the other?

We need electoral reform. We need to know how political parties are funded. We need to be involved in the selection of candidates. We need to know when the election will be held, every single time, through a fixed date. We need to be assured that we will not have to endure the incompetence of any Member of Parliament for five years, equipped with a recall system. We need to be able to choose the best candidate in our constituencies without endorsing the leader of their political party to the prime minister. We need the boundaries to be set, not to be tampered with every five years. We need political quotas to reach gender equality in frontline politics. We need a modern system for voter registration and the tallying of votes. We need a national development plan that drives the agenda for every term and beyond.

We need a government that is led by the people. We need politicians who are the people, in every sense, and commit themselves to the highest good of the people, centring those in situations of vulnerability. We need to them to have integrity and be led it, and we need them to be discontented with the systems that do not serve us, such that they work together, with us, to build what we need rather than use the opportunity for personal gain.

At Women’s Wednesdays this evening, Equality Bahamas is facilitating a workshop designed to identify issues and develop recommendations to address them. There will be working groups on two thematic areas—social services and the environment. Members of the public are welcome to participate in one of the working groups at 6pm at the National Art Gallery of The Bahamas on West Hill Street. Register at tiny.cc/fbc2025.

Published in The Tribune on July 2, 2025.

On May 1, 2025, in what has been described as a “groundbreaking” moment in Caribbean frontline politics, Kamla Persad-Bissessar of the United National Congress (UNC) became the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. Perhaps even more interesting than this is the fact that this is the second time she has been elected to this position.

What makes this groundbreaking, then, is not that a woman now has the position of Prime Minister, but that woman hold the top three constitutional offices in Trinidad and Tobago. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson is the leader of the opposition, the People’s National Movement (PNM). Christine Kangaloo, who has been president since 2023, was responsible for swearing them in.

Last week, social media was full of posts by Caribbean people celebrating the moment, highlighting these three women in these three positions, asserting that it is not only progress, but an uncomplicated achievement. It is not unusual for social media posts to lack gender analysis, and it is not unusual for people to see numerical and proportional increases as synonymous with the true advancement of women. Quantity, as we all should know, is not quality, so there is more to consider.

Following the US presidential election, Persad-Bissessar, as the (then) Opposition Leader, made clear her position on the Biden administration. She said, “They focused on pushing a woke, extreme left-wing agenda that offended basic common sense and morality, overturned the norms of civilised public life, disoriented and mutilated children, censored and cancelled dissenting views, disparaged religious and conservative values, fuelled wars around the world, weaponised the judicial system against political opponents and increased nepotism, corruption, crime, poverty, homelessness, and wealth inequality.”

Persad-Bissessar went on to congratulate and celebrate the current US president. She said: “He has survived assassination attempts, political persecution, and years of personal attacks, but he triumphed in the end.” She added: “I look forward to the return of meritocracy, excellence, and intelligence as a standard criterion for accessing equal opportunities.”

This position is cause for concern for anyone who cares about and is committed to the achievement of gender equality and full access to human rights, especially for those in situations of vulnerability including women, children, LGBTQI+ people, people with disabilities, and people experiencing poverty, all of whom are disproportionately affected and deliberately targeted by the dangerous actions taking by the current US administration.

We do need more women in positions of leadership. We do need to reach gender parity in all levels of governments. We do need women to have decision-making power. We do need women to design and implement policies that move us toward gender equality. Women, however, are not all the same. We are not a homogenous group. There are women who benefit from existing systems of oppression and who are committed to maintaining their positions, even at significant cost to other women. There are women who do not want to be the woman to make the statement or take the action that demonstrates commitment to gender equality and the advancement of all women, often because it is more comfortable to come close to fitting in (with other leaders and decision-makers, the majority of whom are men).

Feminist advocates know this. This awareness is the source of the clear distinction between “women’s groups” and women who are political aspirants who call for more women in parliament and the feminist advocates who acknowledge the nuances and call for more feminist women and women who support women’s rights in positions of leadership at all levels.

Ahead of the 65th United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in 2021, stakeholders from across the Caribbean worked together to develop a regional position on the theme, “Women’s full and effective participation and decision-making in public life, as well as the elimination of violence, for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.” The conversations had significant focus on women’s political leadership, ways to reach gender parity in frontline politics, and the markers of gender equality in leadership that extend beyond numbers and into outcomes, both for women and girls and for entire countries.

When gender equality and women’s leadership—particularly in the areas of political life and public life—is discussed, people focus almost exclusively on numbers. Just as there are difference among men in positions of leadership, there are differences among women in positions of leadership.

There are differences in beliefs and values, in skills, in leadership practices, in personal and professional interests, and in ideas and vision of success. It is easy for people to make assumptions about women in positions of leadership based on what they think they know. There are many gender stereotypes that are taken to be true, often entirely due to the frequency with which they are stated as though they are facts and the infrequency of them being refuted. Women do not all lead in the same way. Men do not all lead in the same way either. These facts do not necessarily change the longstanding ideas people have about the differences between women and men and what they mean for abilities and outcomes. This is a primary reason for the focus on gender, what it means, what it does not mean, and how it is used to limit opportunities.

Feminist advocates for women’s political leadership know that numbers are important. The call for women’s leadership in public and political life extends beyond women receiving nominations, getting votes, and being elected into office. It is for harmful gender ideology to be eradicated and social norms to change. It is for the creation of an enabling environment for women’s participation and leadership in public and political life. It is for increased positive representation of women in leadership in media. It is for early exposure to policymaking and spaces and processes. It is for the development of opportunities for women and girls to lead and conditions under which leadership by women and girls is supported, celebrated, and normalised.

Regarding the political moment in Trinidad and Tobago, Dr Gabrielle Hosein, lecturer at the Institute for Gender and Development Studies at the University of the West Indies St Augustine’s campus said, “In Trinidad and Tobago’s political history, having three different kinds of women leaders right now is unprecedented and historic.” Importantly, she noted that these wins are symbolic. “We have to see if they lead to ‘substantive’ wins, meaning approaches to governance that are less domineering and antagonistic and more inclusive and transformative, and create greater social, economic and gender justice,” she said.

Feminist advocates hold multiple truths. One is that women have the right to hold positions of leadership and decision-making power, and this is not contingent on any trainings or alignment on sociopolitical issues any more than is the case for men. Another is that the progress we need, particularly on women’s rights, gender equality, and social development, requires the participation and leadership of feminist women and women who are committed to working on achieving these goals, even in the face of great opposition, (from) wherever it rears its head.

This means that, just as many men in leadership are mediocre, women have the right to be mediocre in leadership. Just as men enter frontline politics without training, women can enter frontline politics without training. This, however, is not where the bar must be set. It is discriminatory to hold women to a different (and higher) standard than that to which we hold men, so must set higher expectations for all leaders while acknowledging the importance of increasing women’s representation to reach gender parity. This increases the visibility of women as leaders, demonstrates possibilities to young women and girls, normalises women’s leadership, and makes it possible for more women to take feminist positions not only at the personal level, but professionally, within the walls of parliament, cabinet, and the senate.

Published in The Tribune on May 7, 2025.