Posts

The genocide in Gaza continues

Yesterday marked two years since the beginning of a heightened awareness of the genocide in Palestine. This week, while discussion of a “20-point Gaza Peace Plan” take place, the genocide continues.

I continue to write about the genocide in Palestine, enacted by “Israel”, because the genocide continues. I write about it because it is far too easy to ignore it. I write about it because it is too convenient to leave it to someone else and to determine that it is the duty of someone else to speak up. I write about it because I know that relatively few people are watching news stories about it, reading the history for themselves, or engaging in conversations with other people about what is happening, why it continues, and how it is relevant to us.

Two years later, it may seem “normal” to see tents being bombed and people scrambling to collect what little they own before moving on to a still-unknown location, only to be pushed out again. What we are seeing, or refusing to see, on social media, day after day, is colonisation. It is the system we would like to believe is in the past, never to rear its head again. It is the systematic murder of a people, destruction of the land, and an attempt at erasing their culture. It is a series of acts of domination and the complete violation of human rights. It is a testing of weapons and tactics that will not end with the Palestinian people—certainly not if we remain silent as it happens to the Palestinian people.

Though more States have recognised the State of Palestine, there is little action to end the genocide. It is absolutely necessary for governments to end their diplomatic relationships and economic engagement with “Israel.” There is no utility in “recognising” Palestine while supporting, implicitly or explicitly, the genocide “Israel” is committing every single day, with money from governments and corporations all over the world.

This week, in Middle East Eye, Palestinian journalist Fareed Taamallah wrote, “Recognition, while important, will remain meaningless unless it brings about the permanent end of occupation and genocide through a serious, firm and effective challenge to Israel’s crimes. For decades, Palestinians have endured occupation while the international community failed to uphold its political and legal responsibilities, applying international law with a blatant double standard. What Palestinians need most are decisive measures: ending cooperation with Israel, imposing economic sanctions and prosecuting its leaders for war crimes.”

“This year, the timing of international recognitions coincides with the olive harvest – the most important agricultural season in Palestine, vital for sustaining thousands of families and deeply symbolic in our identity. My family and I should be among the olive trees in our ancestral village of Qira, near Salfit. Instead, we face relentless obstacles, not only from seasonal droughts or pests, but from systemic restrictions imposed by the occupation. For Palestinians, harvesting olives is more than an economic necessity – it is an act of resilience and belonging. Across the West Bank, however, families like mine are denied access to our groves by military orders and forced to watch settlers uproot and burn our trees,” Taamallah wrote.

Taamallah noted that the recognition of the State of Palestine is symbolic, and seems to be an easy way for governments to feign a moral stance when their true intent is to quiet the discontent in the public and quell any action. It should not be a single step that gives governments permission to look the other way, but lead to more decisive action to end the genocide. “[Recognitions of the State of Palestine] must drive us to establish a democratic, inclusive system based on freedom and justice, rather than one that excludes key political factions at the demand of foreign governments.” The Palestinian people need governments to end their complicity in the genocide.

Palestinian American human rights attorney Noura Erakat spoke at the Security Council 10011th meeting with a focus on women and peace and security on October 6. She grounded her statement in Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security which acknowledges the role of women in conflict resolution, peace negotiations, peace-building, and humanitarian response. It calls on States to “ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict.”

“Twenty-five years ago, when this body adopted Resolution 1325, the Security Council made an unabashedly feminist commitment to advance gender equality because you understood that women are critical agents for a just peace. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Palestine where, for decades, courageous Palestinian women have resisted dispossession, removal, apartheid, and now genocide, yet nowhere have the [Women, Peace and Security] tenets of equality, inclusivity, accountability and respect for human rights been more out of reach, said Erakat.

“In Gaza, one woman and one girl have been killed every hour for the past 730 days. Despite the recent enthusiasm to end this war, the terms of the current proposal are setting up Palestinians to live under permanent occupation and siege. The end of the genocide cannot come at the expense of accountability and justice for its survivors. The voices of Palestinian women have been notably absent from this chamber.”

Erakat noted that her participation was in representation of Palestinian sisters who could not be there due to restrictions on travel and the denial of US visas. “Others face reprisals for speaking out,” she said. “This Council should be doing everything in its power to recognise and support Palestinian women as agents of change, but when a people are enduring genocide, the first priority is life. Today, I will show how Israel’s ongoing Nakba in Gaza intends to destroy the Palestinian people in violation of the Genocide Convention.”

Erakat’s statement was specific to the reproductive genocide taking place in Palestine, and she listed four points to make clear goal of “Israel” to “eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian future”.

In the first point, Erakat stated that just surviving is a struggle. The destruction of buildings has left no room for intimacy. Engagement in sexual intimacy is made even more difficult, if not impossible, by the sexual violence enacted against Palestinian people including rape and electrocution of genitals. From 2022 to 2025, there was a 41 percent decline in the birth rate of Palestinians in Gaza.

Secondly, Erakat noted that even in cases where women were able to conceive, it has been difficult to carry a pregnancy to term. “In addition to the trauma of incessant bombardment, attacks on medical facilities, hunger, and disease, it is impossible for women to meet basic needs, let alone access their sexual and reproductive rights.” She shared the story of a pregnant woman having to flee a bombed shelter with nowhere to go. The woman was informed, one week later, that her pregnancy would end.

Thirdly, for Palestinian women who are able to carry their pregnancies to term, it is difficult to deliver. It has been almost impossible for Palestinian women to access prenatal care which increased the risk of postpartum haemorrhage. Palestinian women are delivering in deplorable conditions, including in hospitals where there is no anaesthesia.

Fourth, for those who manage to deliver living babies, it is a struggle to keep them alive. “Over 60 percent of pregnant and breastfeeding women are unable to produce milk due to malnutrition,” Erakat said.

Babies have been born and killed during the genocide which is severely impacting the ability of Palestinians to continue life. Erakat said, “This was always the intention.”

“Israel” is not just dropping bombs on nameless, faceless people. It has been taking aim at medical professionals and journalists—people who could save lives, and people who could report on the events. It targeted areas it had declared safe. It indiscriminately killed people, many of whom were women and children. It continues to create circumstance that threaten life. It is destroying the land and it is trying to control reproduction. The elimination of then Palestinian people has always been the goal, and States need to be at least as decisive and intentional in their resolve and their actions to save lives and support the Palestinian right to self-determination. The genocide will not end when the State of Palestine is recognised by all, but when all States withdraw their support from “Israel” and its genocide.

What are you prepared to demand of your own government? What changes are you prepared to make in your spending? Join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Stop funding genocide.

Published in The Tribune on October 8, 2025.

/0 Comments/by

Flotilla defies Israeli blockade

THE genocide continues in Palestine. “Israel” continues its brutality. Yesterday, soldiers detained two children in the occupied West Bank for “spying.” When people suggested they let them go because they are so young, one of the soldiers said, “I don’t care.”

The Freedom Flotilla—more than 40 civilian boats with activists, lawyers, and parliamentarians—is steadily making its way to Palestine, carrying aid for the Palestinian people. At noon on Tuesday, September 30, it was 150 nautical miles away. Last week, the flotilla was attacked by “Israel”. A boat with medical professionals and journalists will join today. International journalists have been blocked, by “Israel,” from entering Gaza for the past two years. This dedicated boat aims to deliver desperately needed medical care and provide an opportunity for international journalists to report from Gaza.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, comprised is “a grassroots people-to-people solidarity movement composed of campaigns and initiatives from different parts of the world, working together to end the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza.” It is working to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip which has significantly contributed to the humanitarian crisis, denying Palestinian people access to food, medicine, and other health needs. It also aims to educate people all over the world about Gaza and the illegal blockade that increases the suffering of the Palestinian people, making Gaza more unlivable with each passing day. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition condemns and publicises “the complicity of other governments and global actors in enabling the blockade” and “[responds] to the cry from Palestinians and Palestinian organizations in Gaza for solidarity for breaking the blockade”.

After the flotilla experienced drone attacks and radio-jamming by “Israel,” Italy and Spain sent navy ships to accompany it. On Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said: “The government of Spain demands that international law be complied with and that the right of its citizens to navigate the Mediterranean under safe conditions be respected.”

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said, “Italian citizens, along with members of parliament and MEPs. To ensure their safety, the foreign ministry had already notified Israeli authorities that any operation entrusted to Israeli forces must be conducted in compliance with international law and the principle of absolute caution.”

“[…]We have now gone to a point where all of our human sensibilities are offended by the continuous and disproportionate attacks on the Palestinian people and the failure to allow access by the international community to the survivors for the provision of humanitarian aid.”

Yesterday, it was reported that Italy’s Defense Ministry would stop accompanying the flotilla at the 150 nautical mile limit to avoid “a diplomatic incident”. @globalsumudflotilla shared on Instagram that the Italian Naval Frigate would not only abandon the flotilla, but offer those on board the “opportunity” to return to shore. They said, “This is not protection. It is sabotage.” Expressing frustration with Italy’s decision, they said “[…]It escorts us only to the point of danger, peeling us away while Israel continues to slaughter and starve the Palestinian people with impunity.”

It is now more important than ever that everyone is not only attentive to the flotilla, but visibly attentive. Follow their accounts on social media, comment to help them show up in others’ feeds, and share their posts for wider reach. We do not need to be politicians or journalist to take action.

In her speech at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley referenced the violence in Sudan and Gaza. She said, “The survivors are entitled to use the words of Bob Marley – “How can you be sitting there telling me that you care? When every time I look around the people suffer in the suffering in every way, in everywhere.[…] The real tragedy of war is that these children, when they become grandparents will still be answering the innocent questions posed by their grandchildren as to how they lost their limbs. “Granny, how did you lose your leg?” And when they answer, we run the risk that the violence and hate will be perpetuated for another two to three generations. This is NOT good.”

Mottley noted that there are multiple crises in this moment, referencing the COVID-19 pandemic and human trafficking. She explicitly stated that the “bigger more insidious crisis” is “the crisis of truth.” Without shared truth, she said, scoring political points becomes a priority and “political tribalism” is the result. Mottley pointed to the loss of trust on various levels, from neighbours to international governance. Before drawing attention to the United Nations Charter and the need to reassess values, she talked about that way violence and hate are passed on from one generation to another, over and over again.

“It is happening now on our watch. We can and must do better to secure the peace – in the name of the children,” Mottley said. “At the very least the international community must immediately find the funding to support the children of Gaza and the children of Sudan for the next three months. In Gaza it is $66m that is needed and $200m for Sudan. This money is mostly nutrition related, to reverse or mitigate famine and also to provide water and sanitation and health interventions.”

“A lasting peace can never be achieved through violence; it can only be achieved through justice and dialogue – talking. And lest we forget, where others are seeking to build the peace and preserve humanity in Gaza, the international community must not condone the bombing of those states who look to facilitate peace.” Mottley continued, “The world is still in need of a reset. We must first and foremost decide whether we still agree on the same set of values that inform the Charter. As simple as it seems, this is a necessary step in any reset. For values have changed in many of our countries over the last 80 years. We cannot assume that it is business as usual.”

Published in The Tribune on October 1, 2025.

/0 Comments/by

The fantasy of the two-state solution

In recent days, multiple states have announced that they now recognise the State of Palestine. This comes after years genocide, forced famine, and continued violence and horrifying conditions, all imposed by “Israel”. It also comes on the heels of the new report that tells the world what we already know, having seen it for ourselves: “Israel” is committing genocide in Palestine.

Established by the Human Rights Council on May, 27, 2021, Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (the Commission) collected and analysed evidence related to the occupied Palestinian territory and alleged violations of international law. Its report, “Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Conference room paper of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel”, was published last week.

This is not the first report by the Commission. Previous reports “found that the Israeli security forces have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including extermination, torture, rape, sexual violence and other inhumane acts, inhuman treatment, forcible transfer, persecution based on gender and starvation as a method of warfare”. It was also found that Israel “destroyed in part the reproductive capacity of the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, including by imposing measures intended to prevent births” and “deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group”.

The report notes that when a genocidal act is committed, there is a duty to punish the act. It references the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both of which define genocide. “The Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court gives that Court jurisdiction to prosecute and punish individuals for the crime of genocide if committed on the territory of a State Party, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, or by a national of a State Party, wherever committed.”

The five categories of genocide, as laid out in the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute are killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting conditions to cause physical destruction of the group, in part or whole, imposing measures to prevent birth within the group, and transferring children of the group to another group by force “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

The reports noted that at least 47 percent of Palestinians killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023 were women and children. It also found that 83 percent of Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported 498 attacks on healthcare facilities, killing 747 people in the Gaza Strip. It was found that women and children were specifically targeted and killed by Israel. “In all cases analysed by the Commission in relation to the attacks along the evacuation routes and within designated safe areas, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces had clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians along the evacuation routes and within the safe areas but nevertheless they shot at and killed civilians, some of whom (including children) 52 were holding makeshift white flags.”

The Commission reported on deaths resulting from the blockade on humanitarian aid, the increase in maternal mortality and neonatal and intrapartum deaths, and at least 1,373 people being killed while trying to access food. It stated, “Palestinians in Gaza were attacked in their homes, at hospitals, in shelters (including schools and religious sites), during the evacuations and in designated safe zones. At times, civilians, journalists, healthcare professionals, humanitarian workers and other protected persons were directly targeted and killed.”

The details in the report are damning and there could only be one conclusion. It concluded that “the Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination in the Gaza Strip by killing Palestinian civilians”. It stated that “the Israeli authorities intended to kill as many Palestinians as possible through its military operations in Gaza since 7 October 2023 and knew that the means and methods of warfare employed would cause mass deaths of Palestinians, including children”.

On page 16 of the 72-page report, it says, “The Commission concludes that the actus reus and mens rea of ‘killing members of the group’ under article II(a) of the Genocide Convention are established.”

The full report is available online, searchable by its title. It give a clear account of what has been taking place in Palestine and the irreparable harm caused to the Palestinian people. In the face of genocide, it is absurd that there continue to be calls for a two-state solution by anyone who is not Palestinian. Tremendous reparations are owed to Palestine and the Palestinian people, and it will take generations to repair the damage done to the land and the people.

As Rabea Eghbariah wrote for The Guardian: “The two-state solution has not only become detached from reality, but for too long steered the discussion away from reality itself[…] Just last month, Israel approved a plan for 22 new settlements in the West Bank. These decades of settlement expansion and de facto annexation have effectively gutted any viable basis for the two-state paradigm, even according to its own metrics.”

Eghbariah added: “The truth is that the two-state solution has become a delusion – a mantra repeated to mask an entrenched one-state reality[…] This mantra continues to prop up the illusion that Israeli occupation is on the brink of ending – if only more states recognize the Palestinian state and if only Palestinians and Israelis would just sit down and talk.”

Eghbariah clearly states that the two-state solution is fantasy and misdiagnosis. It ignores the foundation of what we see happening today, which is not a crisis, but a genocide. That foundation is the Nakba of 1948 and continued destruction of Palestine and displacement of the Palestinian people. There are questions that begin with the Nakba, including and not limited to its legal implications. The fantasy of the two-state solution comes from the idea that the “two sides” need only talk and come to an agreement, never having to reckon with the history of violence inflicted upon the Palestinian people and the justice due to them.

Opinio Juris shared commentary, in response to States recently recognising the State of Palestine, by scholars. Below are four excerpts.

“While two-state solution pontification is presented as pragmatism, it functions as a form of necropolitics, whereby one has power to dictate who is worthy of living. Salaita demonstrates that, when zionism is given oxygen to live, Palestinians are, by necessity, awarded the death penalty. Zionism can only thrive on the ruins of Palestinian villages and through the eradication of Palestinian natives, from the 1948 Nakba until the genocide of Gaza.”

– Bana Abu-Zulu

“Most obviously, the space between recognitions of the State of Palestine and the reality of Palestinian devastation, genocide, and catastrophe is so gaping as to swallow any declarations whole. It took declared famine for the recognising governments to speak at all; it is hard to imagine what would be needed to make them act. “

– Zinaida Miller

“As a child, I wondered why Europe didn’t see us and I would have been elated with this week’s declarations. As an adult, I understand that Europe still does not see us for us, but seeks to absolve itself of the guilt of having helped Israel’s extermination campaign. However, as a Palestinian, I know that our survival, resistance, and will to live provide all the recognition we ever needed.”

– Nawal Hend

“How can a state recognise Palestine without calling out Zionism for what it is? The two are clearly incongruous. A sincere recognition would entail all of the following: a) the creation of a multilateral conference for the consolidation and drawing of definitive boundaries of a Palestinian state; b) the establishment of an immediate peace-keeping mission for the inviolability of said borders and safety of its people; c) the imposition of intolerable sanctions on Israel and its isolation until at the very least the genocidal elements in its government are removed and meaningful relations with the new Palestine entity are restored; d) provision of unequivocal support to the International Criminal Court in its pursuit of justice; e) restoration of the life and dignity of the Palestinian people, both in Palestine proper and its diaspora.”

– Ilias Banters

The genocide is not deniable. It is happening, and it is being documented in realtime. The photos and videos give us imagery and the voices of the people reporting and sharing their stories give us limited insight into the way it feels to live through aggression, destruction, and murder. Palestine may seem geographically distant, but our struggles are connected. Colonialism, racism, and capitalism are known to us too. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement needs more attention and greater, more dedicated participation. Visit bdsmovement.net to see the list of targets. Make the decision to stop spending money with corporations that fund the genocide. Stop enabling Israel. Stand with the Palestinian people.

Published in The Tribune on September 24, 2025

/0 Comments/by
,

Respectability politics in Bahamian schools

In The Bahamas, the commitment to and practice of respectability politics continues to outweigh common sense, human decency, and care for one another. It shows up in so many spaces and has been accepted as “normal” and “proper” for so long that it is rarely questioned, even when it causes obvious harm.

Respectability politics, at one time, was a survival tactic. People in situations of vulnerability, who were marginalised, and who were at risk of violence and discrimination did all they could to blend in by conforming to mainstream “standards” that were, ultimately, those set by white and wealthy people. Black people tried to match their appearance and behaviour with that of white people in the attempt to either go unnoticed or be seen as exceptional, thereby escaping, to some extent, discrimination.

Racism is still rampant today. Classism is still a part of our reality. The survival tactics of one generation are passed down and imposed upon the next. It can be difficult to see the historical context of our practices when they are not discussed, but carried out as a matter of duty, fulfilling expectations, and become norms. For this reason, respectability politics can, in its current practice, appear to be about morals or manners rather than a tactic that was useful (to a limited extent) and is now counterproductive, harmful, and anti-black.

It was not long ago that black women who kept their hair natural, meaning it was not chemically straightened, were strongly discouraged, told that it was unprofessional. People insisted that it did not look neat when, really, it simply was not straight and did not have the properties of straight hair. At a certain point, it was fine to have natural hair if it could be made to look like it was not. This was not about neatness. It was racism. It was the oppression that accompanies the idea that blackness is shameful and that black people aspire to be as close to whiteness as possible. We have seen and heard new stories about people being dismissed from work and school for having afros or locs. Those days, evidently, are not over.

“They came to school looking like hoodlums,” a social media post by RM Bailey said. The school, dissatisfied with their length of hair, decided to take a set of boys to a barber for haircuts. They declared them “beautiful” after the haircuts were provided. The school, mandated to provide education to all enrolled children, removed these children from their classes, took and posted photographs of them, likely without the consent of their parents/guardians, and made a disgusting, disparaging comment about them.

“Hoodlum” is a term that refers to a violent criminal. This is a completely inappropriate term to use to describe any child, especially based on the length of the hair or style of their haircuts. Removing the post is not enough. The boys are owed an apology, both for denigration in the social media post and the violation of their bodily autonomy. RM Bailey, unfortunately, is not alone in this anti-Black racism that has been internalised and unleashed on children in the form of certain rules and they ways they are enforced.

CC Sweeting reportedly kept out of classes when their haircuts were deemed unacceptable. The involved adults, and likely all administrators and educators, need specialised training to give them culturally relevant information on anti-black racism, stereotyping, implicit bias, and microaggressions and support them in developing appropriate rules, regulations, and application principles.

Schools have rules and regulations. Of course. Schools have uniforms. Yes. Schools attempt to set a standard through their rules and regulations. This does not mean the rules and regulations should remain as they have been for years, and it does not mean they are being applied and enforced in appropriate ways, particularly for the education, growth, and full development of this generation.

White boys are not made to keep their hair as short as black boys. For this, there is no reason. There is a root, and it is anti-black racism. It is due to the normalisation and continuation of respectability politics that people continue to practice. From the chemical straightening of black hair and the amount of gel used to manipulate the texture and volume of black hair to achieve a ponytail that looks slick and flat from the front, these practices can be stylistic and personal choices, yet should be considered by those who engage in them. These practices absolutely should not be expected or required of anyone.

Recently, there was lively conversation about a social media post by a business that is refusing service to people wearing bonnets. It is reasonable that a person may wear a bonnet, whether protect their hair, to preserve a hairstyle, to cover hair that is not styled to their liking, or as an accessory one simply likes. It does not need to suit anyone else. No one else needs to applaud the act. It is okay to dislike someone else’s appearance. It is not okay, however, to police the bodies of other people.

It is one thing for a business to refuse service to customers and forgo the related revenue from them and the people who decide not to spend money there as a matter of principle, and it is an entirely different thing to deny or interrupt the education of a child. It is especially egregious just weeks after the handwringing over the national examination results. It is especially foolish when there are children who do not make it to school every day for various reasons, and educators complain about the absences. It is especially irresponsible when so many express concern about boys, fearing that they are or will be “lost”.

We have to be clear about what is important to us and why. Do we want the children in this country to have access to education? Do we want them to have positive experiences at school? Do we want them to fear and be insulted by teachers and administrators, or do we want them be respected and to have respect for others? Do we want them to hate themselves and feel inferior to others, or do we want them to understand their history, know that racism still exists today, and learn to embrace their blackness?

It may be easier to teach children to conform, especially for the adults who only ever conform. It is more difficult to respect children, to allow them them to have opinions, to welcome their questions, to encourage their development of personal style, and to see and treat them as whole human beings.

It is easy to dominate children and control them with fear. It is more difficult to develop relationships with them, have conversations with them, develop codes of conduct in collaboration with them, and ensure that they feel and are safe with you, and can even express a difference of opinion or offer proposals for change.

If schools—the places children spend most of their waking hours—are not environments for children to develop, grow, and learn navigate the world with dignity and respect, how do we expect them to become adults who can effectively communicate, resolve conflict, and contribute to the creation of a better world?

The Ministry of Education and Technical and Vocational Training needs to understand that its mission must extend beyond the provision of curricula and administration of exams. It is also responsible for creating environments for children to know and love themselves, to develop care and empathy for the people around them, and to navigate complex situations with dignity and respect for themselves and others.

Published in The Tribune on September 17, 2025

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Misogyny in politics holds women back

While Leslie Miller’s misogynistic, infantilising reference to Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis is not at all surprising, given his many public episodes, it has drawn attention to the longstanding issue of discrimination against women in political and public life.

The idea that women are inferior and must be relegated to the private sphere and men are superior and entitled to the public sphere persists well beyond the time that one income was sufficient and (some) women’s only work was in the home and in service to the family (which was never the case for black women).

That patriarchal arrangement was in service to capitalism, even more than it was for men, as women made (and still make) it possible for men to work through the provision of various unpaid services including the maintenance of the home and the people living in it and the reproduction of labourers.

Patriarchy created a hierarchy and it has required us to live according to this division, even after the point that women entered the public sphere and, as a matter of necessity, started to work for wages. Patriarchy assigned values and expectations based on gender and while the economic realities have changed and society along with it, patriarchy has its devotees.

Just as patriarchy separated women and men into the private and public spheres, it instilled the belief that men are to be leaders and decision-makers while women are to follow and submit.

Misogyny extends beyond the hatred of women to the hatred of all that is feminine. As emotions are viewed in a binary way, considered feminine or masculine, certain emotions are reserved for women and restricted for men.

On the basis of these socially constructed rules, it was determined that women are too “soft” and “emotional” for leadership, even as men regularly perform anger to the detriment of the people expected to follow them.

Women have worked, for generations, to gain access to opportunities to work and to lead through consistent efforts including, but not limited to, higher education. Today, men regularly attempt to use the level of education many women have attained, and subsequent professional success, as evidence that gender inequality does not exist.

They refuse to see the persisting issues including sexual harassment in the workplace, the gender wage gap, and the impediments to participating in frontline politics and public life.

Miller’s misogynistic comment is evidence of the discrimination that still exists and is not only an annoyance, but a barrier to equal participation and, ultimately, the representation of women in leadership at the level that is proportionate to the population. It also highlights the issue of intersecting forms of discrimination that women face.

A women vying for candidacy or for a seat in Parliament are not only unfairly judged rather than appropriately assessed because of their gender, but because of their (perceived) age, class, and other identities. Women are expected to be deferential and young people are expected to be deferential. Young women are expected to be doubly deferential should they even dare to be in the same space as men.

It is an embarrassment that only 18 percent of parliamentarians are women. No government administration has ever addressed this issue by instituting a political quota. Perhaps even worse, no political party has chosen to take the lead in addressing this issue, demonstrating commitment to achieving gender equality by instituting a quota at the party level.

This is clear evidence of the priorities and the cowardice of political parties. Temporary special measures such as political quotas have been recommended to The Bahamas on numerous occasions through international human rights mechanisms in which The Bahamas voluntarily participates.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 3, obligates States to “ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.”.

Importantly, Article 25 states, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity[…] to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives [and] to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem Do Para) states in Article 4 that “Every woman has the right to the recognition, enjoyment, exercise and protection of all human rights and freedoms embodied in regional and international human rights instruments. These rights include, among others[…] The right to have equal access to the public service of her country and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including decision-making”.

It continues, in Article 5, “Every woman is entitled to the free and full exercise of her civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and may rely on the full protection of those rights as embodied in regional and international instruments on human rights. The States Parties recognise that violence against women prevents and nullifies the exercise of these rights.”

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted in 2015, and goal five on gender equality includes “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” as a target. The indicators are the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local government and the proportion of women in managerial positions.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), also known as the bill of women’s rights, was ratified by The Bahamas in 1993—acknowledgement discrimination against women as a violation of women’s human rights and a commitment to take the necessary steps to come into compliance with the Convention in order to end discrimination against women.

Article 7 of the Convention calls on States to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right[…] to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies [and] to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government.”

As CEDAW was adopted in 1979 and entered into force in 1981, there issues that have emerged and knowledge that has since been created that are not explicitly stated in the Convention. To ensure that it can carry out its mandate and respond to the realities on the ground with its collective human rights expertise, the CEDAW Committee produces General Recommendations which expand upon Articles of the Convention, address areas of concern, and guide States in their reporting.

There are General Recommendations, for example, on violence against women, older women and protection of their human rights, rights of rural women, and gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change. In 2024, the CEDAW Committee produced General Recommendation 40 on equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. It begins, “Women have the right to equal and inclusive representation in all decision-making systems on equal terms with men[…] This right is still not respected. This also seriously hampers implementation of all other rights under the CEDAW Convention.”

General Recommendation 40 was produced as a comprehensive guide for States “on achieving equal and inclusive representation of women in all decision-making systems across all sectors, aiming for a systemic change”.

It recognises seven pillars of equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, recognising “patriarchal structures impede women’s equal and inclusive representation in decision-making systems” and the need for a transformational approach that dismantles those structures. The pillars are:

1. 50:50 parity between women and men as a starting point and universal norm;

2. Effective youth leadership conditioned by parity;

3. Intersectionality and inclusion of women in all their diversity in decision-making systems;

4. A comprehensive approach to decision-making systems across spheres;

5. Women’s equal power and influence in decision-making systems;

6. Structural transformation for equal and inclusive decision-making;

7. Civil society representation in decision-making systems.

General Recommendation 40 is available online. It described all seven pillars and not only sets on the obligations of States, but provides guidance for meeting the obligations. Its recommendations include legal amendments to institutionalize 50:50 parity between women and men in all spheres of decision-making, adoption of a parity strategy, provision of education on temporary and permanent special measures, implementation of awareness-raising campaigns toward positive discourse on parity, cooperation with media to condemn, monitor and ensure accountability for sexism and misogyny, and prevention and prosecution of hate speech in decision-making and against women candidates.

All candidates, representatives, leaders, and members of political parties should read the document and contribute to moving The Bahamas toward compliance through all means available to them.

Published in The Tribune on September 10, 2025

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Culture Clash: Want More Women in Politics? Create a Better Environment

International Women’s Day was on Monday and, of course, it came with radio talk show slots, panel discussions, presentations and purple attire. It is an annual day to celebrate the progress women have made and to take action toward the changes that still need to happen.

The global campaign’s theme was “Choose To Challenge” and the UN Women theme was focused on women’s leadership (in alignment with the upcoming 65th session of the Commission on the Status of Women). Both themes were taken up and used to frame events and initiatives. It was great to see Corporate Bahamas make space for discussions about women in leadership and the issues we all need to choose to challenge. It is even more important that they contribute to the efforts through resources, including funding, and structural changes that ensure women are in the leadership pipeline, compensated fairly and working in enabling environments.

The Prime Minister recently stated that “the representation of women in Cabinet is at an historic low”. He said he challenges himself, political parties and the nation to ensure more women are in the House and the Cabinet.

These words, of course, are nothing without action. It is not enough to wish for better representation of women. The Prime Minister claimed “a number of women” declined the offer to run on the Free National Movement’s ticket and that he is pleased that more women are running this time around. It will be interesting to see how many women the Free National Movement puts forward. The current proportion is abysmal with only five of the 30 ratified candidates being women.

Unless eight of the nine candidates to be announced are women, there is very little to show for the Prime Minister’s statement about including more women as the party would not even have 30 percent representation. How can we expect more women in Cabinet if they are not going to be on the ballots?

The Prime Minister said he was frustrated by women declining opportunities to run. He did not give the reasons. Maybe they did not see the Free National Movement—or any other party, for that matter—taking firm positions on issues of importance to them. Maybe they do not want to be collapsed into a system that was not built for them. Maybe they do not see the political environment as one they can survive in, much less thrive.

Aside from all of the issues with party politics and the failure of every political party in the country to make clear their positions on important issues, there are specific actions that need to be taken in order to create an environment within which women can safely and successfully participate.

If party leaders care about women’s engagement in political leadership, they need to take decisive, targeted action.

Here are five actions the Prime Minister and all political parties need to take in order to successfully recruit, retain and run women as candidates in general elections:

  • Institute a quota. Go beyond 30 percent which is a low bar and does not result in gender parity in a world, and a country, in which more than half the population are women and girls. Low bars do nothing for us. Let’s start with acknowledging that we have a long way to go, then figure out how to get there. Make the quota 50 percent, and do it now. The current administration can still do this on a national level. All political parties can do it for themselves. Let’s call on all political parties to make their positions on women’s leadership clear by instituting party quotas of 50 percent now. This commits them to do the work of recruiting and training women, creating enabling environments within the parties, and improving the conditions of all women so that they are able to pursue opportunities in frontline politics and other forms of political leadership.
  • Provide training and mentorship for women. Boys and men are raised and trained to believe that they are destined for leadership while girls and women are often taught that they are to play supportive roles. What we see in the leadership of men and boys and in women and girls is not a result of natural abilities or inclinations on the basis of gender, but gender ideologies that have been used to put people on particular paths. Men and boys have long been considered more suitable for leadership and certain kinds of work, so women and girls have been dealing with implicit and explicit discouragements from leadership and the areas of work that have been reserved for men. This needs to be intentionally interrupted and corrected. We need specific programmes and initiatives targeting women and girls, preparing them for leadership.
  • Reject gender stereotypes. Publicly challenge and rebuke all suggestions that gender is a determinant of ability or suitability. Create opportunities for women and girls to pursue education and careers in areas that continue to be dominated by men. Run campaigns that highlight women already working in these areas, their contributions to the industries and to the country, and the support that has made it possible. Encourage the private sector to do the same. One example is providing scholarships and other opportunities such as fellowships to girls and women pursuing education in STEM and trades.
  • Reduce the burden of care work. One of the factors that impacts people’s performance in the workplace and both ability and willingness to pursue ambitions is the work they have to do outside of their formal employment. Women are often tasks with the upkeep of the home. Even if a household can afford to employ domestic workers, the supervision and management of household tasks still tends to be the responsibility of the women. Childcare and eldercare are often the responsibility of women as well.

There is so much to be done at home that it is known as “the second shift” and can prevent women—and the girls often enlisted to help and learn from them—from studying and participating in other activities that could help to advance their careers. Recognize that women’s time is not elastic, acknowledge that women have taken on much of the work that the state is obligated to do, and make structural changes to allow and encourage men to share the domestic labour and support women in reclaiming their time. For example, change the expectation that women are solely responsibly for childcare by amending legislation to give parental leave so that fathers have more than five days to help with newborn care, leaving postpartum women to heal and care for babies alone.

  • Protect women from gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is a pervasive issue that is affecting families, communities, islands, and the country. It can be physical or non-physical, and it takes place both in person and online. Social media has been weaponized by men, used to discourage women from engaging in public life and punishing them for it if they dare to enter public life anyway. This administration and all political parties need to rebuke all forms of violence against all women, regardless of political affiliation or position. Disparaging comments and ads that target women on the basis on their gender need to be banned.

There are many other ways to create an environment that is conducive to participation of women and other marginalized people.

This needs to be regarded as a matter of priority and a marker of the commitment of the Prime Minister and all political parties to ensuring, not only greater participation of women in politics, but gender parity.

It’s not just about recruiting women and hoping they accept under the current conditions.

There is a responsibility to create a better environment through systems and initiatives that not only demonstrate personal and political commitment, but contribute to a cultural shift that creates space for women to not only lead, but do so with support and the reasonable expectation that they and their families will be safe.

Published in my weekly column in The Tribune on March 10, 2021.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Bring On Political Quotas

Last week, when questioned about the lack of representation of women in parliament, Leader of the Opposition Philip “Brave” Davis said 30 to 40 percent of the Progressive Liberal Party’s 2022 slate of candidates will be women. He noted the best proportion could be higher, but it depends on who makes themselves available. Both the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement both had outrageously low numbers of female candidates in the 2017 general election. It is clear political parties in The Bahamas are not paying enough attention to issues of gender, how they contribute to them, or the ways they can bring transformation.

Public sentiment about political quotas has been negative over the past few years. The topic draws commentary from people who are not only annoyed by conversations about gender equality, but do not understand how quotas work. Political quotas are not about arbitrarily putting women in seats. They are about creating environments in which women have the opportunity to receive the necessary training, education and experience, present themselves as candidates, receive party and public support to run for winnable seats and represent their constituencies well. Quotas encourage political parties to make adjustments that result in increased access for women. If every political party has to ensure 30 percent of its slate is women, they will have to invest in better recruitment and training practices because they want to win. Their wins are inextricably tied to the performance of individual candidates and women should be included.

It is important to dispel the most widespread myth about political quotas. We do not advocate for a political quota only to see a high number of women candidates in a general election. We want great representation. Our support will go to exceptional candidates who show understanding of issues of national concern, critical thinking skills, ability to develop solutions and other characteristics and relationships that ensure they will be effective (such as the full support of the political party and its leadership). Today, we are not convinced candidates with the greatest potential truly have access.

Can they engage in the process to become candidates? Do they have the support they need, especially if they are not already well-known? How can they compete with people who embody what so many believe a leader to be, just by being men?

Women, feminists and women’s rights advocates want true representation and are as concerned about the quality of candidates as everyone else, if not more. We have seen what appointing a woman just because she is a woman can do. We want excellent candidates. A political quota would help us to ensure such candidates are able to participate and not blocked because it is more politically expedient to run someone who is more readily seen as capable because he is a man. We have to intentionally make space for women and, by doing so, change the way we see women, leadership and women in positions of leadership.

In some countries, there are political parties that have instituted quotas. Voluntary quotas have been adopted by political parties in Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Canada, Germany, Kenya and Malta among others. If the Progressive Liberal Party is serious about ensuring women are given equal opportunity to participate in frontline politics by responding by the inequalities in systems and practices, it has the opportunity to set a precedent. It can be the first political party in The Bahamas to reserve a proportion of its slate for women and develop a process for recruitment, training and campaign management that accounts for gender relations. This needs to happen and it is imperative it is not a one-time deal, but is embedded in the party’s constitution, pushing others to do the same. The political quota is not the only need, but will prompt the systemic changes we need in order to move toward gender equality more broadly and proper representation in frontline politics in particular.

When we begin to see women as leaders and as effective representatives, we will no longer need a political quota. For now, it can only help us to move further along with people in parliament who look like us, live like us, understand us and can advocate for our specific needs as a constituency.

Published by The Tribune on June 12, 2019.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Minnis’ Cabinet Shuffle

No matter how low we set our expectations, there seems to be surprise, embarrassment, and frustration at every turn. There has not been much to celebrate in recent weeks, the increase in Value Added Tax bringing a muddy tinge to our reality. It puts everything in a different perspective. We do not think about anything without considering the twelve percent VAT added onto it, or the twelve percent VAT that should cover it. This is about more than grocery. It is about management of funds, yes, but also about government operations and the way resources — especially human resources — are used.

We are more watchful, critical, and vocal when it feels like the money is coming directly out of our pockets, and it is. From the decision not to appoint new parliamentary secretaries with a reason — that the positions are unnecessary — pointing to a waste of $90,000 to reneging on the commitment to host the IAAF World Relays and, at the same time, claiming the Bahamian people “accepted” the VAT increase, the Prime Minister is obviously determined to do as he likes whenever he likes and create false narratives while refusing to acknowledge criticism.

Cabinet shuffle on our dime

The cabinet shuffle came at an unexpected time. This administration has not even been in for eighteen months and we have already ministers and permanent secretaries moved from one ministry to another. How is this beneficial to the Bahamian people? Is is cost-effective? Does it increase productivity? Is it a morale boost? There is no reason anyone can find to support this move.

When asked to explain the reason for the shuffle, Minnis said, “It gives individuals exposure and experience in all the different ministries. That’s why I don’t have any ministry. I have no ministry so I can look at all and learn about all.”

This raises even more questions. Why is the Government of The Bahamas in the business of offering work-study placements? We all know cabinet appointments are rewards to the faithful and the spineless. Prime Ministers treat those who have supported and spoken no ill of them with favor in the form of an additional salary. They would have us believe it is too much to ask for some consideration to the qualifications and experience suitable for each post.

It is clear that the intention is not to put people where they will perform best, or give ministries the benefit of experienced ministers. Minnis said, “Individuals are moved and they become knowledgeable in certain things. There is no so-called pre-training before you engage in a post. You learn and you become very good.”

Well, thank goodness for that. As long as the Ministers are benefitting from these educational experiences, right?

Of course most appointments depend on the limited range of education, skills, and experience of members of parliament elected, but due consideration to the optimal mix should be a part of the nomination process. There is no excuse for using government ministries — responsible for areas critical to our economic, social, and physical wellbeing such as health, education, youth, sports, culture, and tourism — as training grounds for people paid tens of thousands of dollars from the public purse. This is an insult and an outrage.

Minnis: Looking and learning or primary duties only?

As for the statement that Minnis has no ministry so that he can “look at all and learn about all,” similar concerns arise. Minnis is not the Prime Minister so he can get paid work experience in numerous fields. It is doubly troubling when we bring to mind his 2017 explanation for having no ministerial portfolio which is quite the opposite of this new line of reasoning.

“I made this decision in order to perform my primary constitutional duty as prime minister. This primary constitutional duty is the coordination and oversight of the Cabinet of the Bahamas,” Minnis said.

There is a difference between looking at and learning about all ministries and performing the primary duty of the Prime Minister. He should be able to entrust ministers with the task of overseeing their ministries and the departments therein and communicate regularly with the permanent secretaries, department heads, and cabinet. There is no reason for the Prime Minister to be intimately involved in every ministry, and no explanation for the waste of resources in reassignments and loss of productivity due to unnecessary, often disruptive changes.

Minnis said it himself. “You go in, you read, you understand, and many instances you become better than who was there, sometimes you’re not.”

A more believable version

Maybe we choose to buy the “exposure” story because it is easier to accept that the Prime Minister really thinks governance is a game of musical chairs, or appointments are collectible items and his people need to get as many as possible. What if there is another version of the story? Recall the appointment of Lanisha Rolle as Minister of Social Services and Community Development. People were not happy about it; least of all the people who celebrated the upgrade of The Bureau of Women’s Affairs to the Department of Gender and Family Affairs in 2016. The establishment of the Department felt like a step into the twenty-first century, but Rolle’s appointment was disappointing at best, terrifying at worst. She had already made it clear that she did not stand with the women’s rights advocates in The Bahamas.

It was, as expected, a disaster. The RISE (conditional cash transfer) program was discontinued in less than two months, never to be discussed again. Little, if any, information was provided to the press on this or any other issue. Regular meetings with women’s organizations suddenly stopped. It became more difficult members of civil society to get information. The then Minister of Social Services and Community Development outright refused to meet with many stakeholders. It seemed every single thing needed her approval, and this resulted in very little being done, and last minute announcements of events like National Women’s Week and International Women’s Day.

We learned from observation that her brand of empowerment, for women and those living in poverty, was the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps variety. There have been reports of her blatant disrespect of others and intentionally impeding progress on new and existing projects. She was certainly ill-suited to this ministerial portfolio, and it took far too long for her to be moved. Now, the question. Was this the real reason for the cabinet shuffle? Did Minnis finally get the memo — that Rolle needed to be moved from the Ministry — and choose other people to move at the same time in hopes that it would be less obvious?

If this is not the case, it is quite strange that the Ministry of Youth, Sports, and Culture lost Michael Pintard. It is odd that only four ministers are being shuffled. The others must be just as deserving of the “exposure” Minnis is giving out at our expense.

There is more than enough happening — and not happening — to upset us. One of the most frustrating is certainly the lack of honesty and integrity that would prompt leaders and representatives to plainly state the reasons for their action. Lay out the logic behind decisions. It is not good enough to give a quick response to move on to the next question or end the engagement. Bahamian citizens must demand to be treated with respect. After all, we are the employers. We pay twelve percent VAT. That has to count for something.

Published in The Tribune on July 11, 2018.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Mottley cruises to electoral wipeout

On May 24, 2018, Barbados elected its first female prime minister. Mia Amor Mottley led the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) to victory, winning over 74% of the votes. This election brought an end to ten years of governance by Democratic Labour Party (DPL) led by Freundel Stuart since 2010. The BLP won all 30 seats in the House of Assembly—a first in the country’s history. Political parties in The Bahamas should look at the BLP’s campaign and collateral as there is a great deal that can be learned and practiced.

Mia Mottley, now the eighth prime minister of Barbados, has served as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly twice and Attorney General. Her political career has been impressive since her entry in 1991 at the age of 26. She has held ministerial portfolios including Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, Economic Affairs and Development and worked on a National Youth Development programme. Mottley also served as Deputy Prime Minister from 2003 to 2008. Mottley has now joined the ranks of other first female prime ministers in the English-speaking Caribbean—Dame Eugenia Charles of Dominica, Janet Jagan of Guyana, Portia Simpson Miller of Jamaica, and Kamla Persad Bissessar of Trinidad and Tobago.

The Campaign

The Barbados Labour Party ran a campaign focused on the main issues of concern with significant emphasis on the economy. In the lead-up to election day, the party reminded the people of its values and commitments. The DLP, on the other hand, resorted to cheap tactics, including a speech from former Minister of Environment and Drainage Denis Lowe stating that “the Barbados Labour Party is led by a self-proclaimed wicker.” (“Wicker” is a Barbadian pejorative for “lesbian.”) He claimed she “doesn’t have any liking for men, except those men who don’t have balls,” and the men in the BLP have been neutered. The DLP put its energy in the wrong place, expecting fear and hatred to rule the ballots.

The BLP has worked to be transparent and involve citizens in the governance of Barbados. In January, the party shared its draft Integrity Commission Bill, calling on the public to offer comments which would be considered. It noted that enactment of the bill would be a matter of priority if elected. In her statement on the occasion of Barbados’ 51st Independence, Mottley committed to a journey of “certainty, consultation and a common gaol that brings everyone on board.” The messaging from the BLP was consistent, calling for everyone to work together to bring a collective vision to fruition.

The manifesto

The BLP manifesto, while short on details, is easy to read and digest. The two-part document separates longterm goals from the more immediate agenda to be carried out in the first six months. The latter includes rebuilding foreign reserves, dealing with debt, tax relief, improving sewerage systems, putting buses back on the road, and preparing for natural disasters. The list includes action steps for each of the 17 items which give an idea of what the BLP intends to take.

The transformational agenda for the five-year term is divided into X pillars—Better Society, Strong Economy, Good Governance, Repair and Renewal (of infrastructure), Blue and Green Economies, and Engaging the World. The website allowed people to view sections based on their identities such as youth, senior citizen, and middle class, and had an audio version which made the manifesto more accessible.

Focus on youth

Recognizing one of the largest voting blocks, the BLP made a youth-specific manifesto available on its website, making it easy for young people to see its intentions. In this plan, the six-month rescue plan is set out in three step—fix the economy, fix infrastructure, and create opportunity. These are later divided into more specific steps like lowering the cost of living through measures including the abolition of road tax and repeal on the municipal solid waste tax and returning free UWI tuition to Barbadian students. The second phase of the plan goes beyond the first six months with sections called live (including health and the justice system), learn (including prioritization of STEAM), create (including a talent showcase), do business (including procurement), play (including entertainment), work (including the development of new industries), and dream (including the creation of citizen wealth). At the end, it offers information for first-time voters.

The success of the Barbados Labour Party and its campaign and collateral are indicative in a necessary shift in the culture of politics in Barbados and throughout the region. Party loyalty is almost nonexistent. Citizens are not interested in petty back and forth arguments on rally stages. People are beginning to understand the importance of civic participation that goes beyond the casting of ballots. Good governance has been a requirement, and political parties are being called to exercise it within their internal systems. Personal attacks sully the names and characters of the people launching them. Voters are paying attention to track records, plans, and the level and frequency of engagement.

Good feelings

The BLP win and Mottley’s win feel good. They feel like progress. They seem like a change with a promise to never go back. Still, there are unknowns and there are harsh truths that must be faced. Barbados has its first female prime minister, but still only has six women in the House of Assembly. In its manifesto, the section on gender equality has only four points—equal pay for equal work, paternity leave, male participation in tertiary education, and female entrepreneurship. These leaves a lot to be desired. There is, for example, no mention of women’s political participation or the introduction of a quota. It must be noted that it could be difficult for Mottley to push a women’s rights agenda. Being a woman and the prime minister is not a panacea. Women’s rights advocates have to continue their work and the press for progress.

Like having a female prime minister for the first time, a clean sweep feels good. It is an undeniable victory, and a clear message from the nation. This has its own challenges, and The Bahamas is becoming familiar with them. There is nothing to celebrate in not having an opposition, and it is critical that the people resist the inclination to relax and believe that all will be well and their jobs are done. The lack of opposition makes the role of the citizen even more critical. There will likely be no one in Parliament to see and hear the questionable and make statements to the press that will inform the public. Who is going to pay attention? The people have to pay attention. To take notes. To ask questions. To challenge ideas. To offer commentary. The citizens have to step up.

As Mottley said in her first address after the election, “All ideas must contend. Even before a government has the right to take a decision, all ideas must contend.”

Published in The Tribune on May 30, 2018.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Playing Follow the Leader

When we talk about leadership, we usually point to government as an example. The Prime Minister is seen as the ultimate leader. There is no one with more control. No one with greater power. No one with more responsibility. No one in a more important position. No one more unquestionable or beyond reproach. No one more silencing, domineering or undoubtedly correct. The prime minister is synonymous with leadership.

If you have managed not to rip this page to shreds, which of those statements made you uncomfortable? In which parts did you find irony? At which point did you think I could not be serious? What does this tell you about the way you feel about leadership in The Bahamas, and the positions and people we typically view as leaders?

Who’s in charge here?

It is interesting that we view politicians as leaders, even more than we see members of parliament as representatives. When we talk about leadership, it is often in ways that validate and celebrate dictatorial practices. One makes the decision for many. Consultation, if it exists at all, is at a minimum. The attitude is: “you put me here, so let me do my job”. This, however, only seems to work in one direction.

Members of parliament manage to say or demonstrate this to constituents, but ministers can not say this to the prime minister. It seems everyone is a leader until they have a leader, and in the presence of a high-level leader, all other leaders are stripped of the title.

Those who dare to behave like leaders, rather than subjects of the high-level leader, are scolded, belittled and threatened. The firstborn loses all authority when the parents get home from work.

What kind of leadership are we practicing if it is threatened by anyone else – even on our team – asserting themselves, offering criticism and developing solutions?

Leadership of a different kind

Minister of state for legal affairs Elsworth Johnson has been one of the only a few people to dare speak on even mildly controversial issues with any degree of honesty and both personal and professional understanding and obligation. In November 2017, he spoke strongly in support of proposed changes to citizenship law. Without pressing for people to adopt his position, he implored the Bahamian people to “come up to a higher level and accept certain truths as they exist in our society.” He encouraged respectful conversation, even if we disagree.

In March 2018, Johnson spoke to the issue of marital rape, noting people are not property. He encouraged a consultative process, accountability and transparency. He said: “It is accepted international standard that information maintained by the government is vital to civil society. That information when properly dispensed to members of civil society undergirds a democracy to give life to it and it allows people to properly involve themselves in the governance of the country.”

This is what we should expect of a leader. Willingness and ability to state positions on issues. Pushing the government to make information accessible to the public and provide opportunities for engagement.

Encouraging the public to participate in the process, access information and come to informed decisions. Johnson has demonstrated and exercised the ability to think for himself, challenge his colleagues and invite public discourse.

This flies in the face of the unspoken mandate of Bahamian ministers and members of parliament who are to tow the party line. The only opinion is the party’s opinion, the only challenge is to the Opposition, and the only reason to engage the citizenry is for votes.

Compare Johnson’s leadership with that of the “leaders” who refuse to take positions on hot button issues, sit small until their names are called, shy away from any forum giving citizens the opportunity to address them. Which do you prefer and which is most expedient for the head leader in charge?

Last week, Johnson went too far out of bounds. He dared to call for a chief justice to be appointed. Following the Bahamas Bar Association’s characterisation of no appointed chief justice as an “existential and constitutional crisis”, the former president of the Association spoke up. He said: “the right, transparent and accountable thing to do is for the PM to exercise his constitutional authority and appoint a chief justice”.

If a Minister disagrees and no one hears it, does it make a difference?

This is not disrespect. This is not unreasonable. This is a thought-out and explained position. Johnson said, rightly, that the vacancy should be filled. This is obvious. Without directly referencing the current state of the office – where senior justice Stephen Isaacs now serves as acting chief justice – Johnson challenged the self-loathing we all know exists in The Bahamas, and suggested that a foreign appointee would be properly compensated. Where is the lie?

Better yet, what is the problem? It is not what was said. It is where it was said, and who could hear it.

This must have made Prime Minister Hubert Minnis uncomfortable. Making this appointment was not on his agenda. He is busy balancing people’s-person and man-in-charge. It is not easy.

How can you be seen as a nice guy, but also have the respect of the people – especially those you consider to be beneath you? Having already called for a resignation and fired someone else very recently, we can only imagine the action taken to elicit the apology Johnson issued last week.

An apology for stating publicly what some say should have been a private conversation. A private conversation about a public matter.

We have grown so accustomed to being in the dark, to electing people and walking away, to being told our business is none of our business that anyone who attempts to involve us in the conversation is seen as out of order. We forget that they are employed by us. We, the people.

Who will lead next?

We have had a leadership crisis for some time now, and it continues. There are many new faces in the current administration, but has there been any real change? Can there be any substantive change within the same system that recycles not only people, but form and function?

The Bahamas is being governed using the same tactics we look back on and criticise, believing ourselves much evolved since the ‘70s. The play is the same. Same script, different cast. The actors of today learned from those of yesterday. They study and follow the notes left behind. They have bought into the same values, and have the same single-mindedness we rebuke and swear off with every election season. They are worn down. They join the cult.

Look at the ages of the people in positions of leadership, then look at the ages of the people in tomorrow’s obituary.

Look at the ages of the people locked out of the system or, when let in, are either silenced or brainwashed.

The leadership crisis continues. The crisis of representation continues.

We know public life is not easy, but do not often acknowledge that it is without reward for those determined to participate differently. Those who do not follow script. Those who speak out of turn. Those who do not bind themselves to convention or tradition, and do not feel indebted to the people or systems that brought them in to the point that they must become puppets.

We need to concern ourselves with the development of a new generation of leaders. In 20 years, who do we want to be at the helm, and how will we prepare them?

Watching Bahamian governance and listening to commentary would not encourage many people to be different. To speak up. To object. To demand better. To use positions of power to create change. We make leadership about popularity and longevity; not authenticity in the process of visioning, charting a path and equipping people for the journey.

Until we redefine it, it will be practiced in the same way, and we deserve to see change in more than time and faces.

Published by The Tribune on April 11, 2018.

/0 Comments/by