The Tribune

ON one of his trips to a Family Island to discuss independence for The Bahamas, Sir Lynden Pindling was confronted by an older lady who accepted that the country should become a sovereign nation.  But she added a warning cum proviso: “We’re going to keep the Queen though!?”

Becoming a republic and removing the British monarch as head of state would have been a bridge too far for many Bahamians. It may have significantly reduced support for independence.

Dr. Derek O’Brien is a Reader in Public Law at Oxford Brookes University, “a public research university in Oxford, England.”  In a May 2016 article on Constitutionnet, Dr. O’Brien traces the constitutional roots and impetus toward republican status for a number of Caribbean states.

“Dominica was one of the last countries in the region to gain independence. It did so as a republic. All of the other independent countries in the region were constitutional monarchies at independence.

“The Dominica case is intriguing. Why was it the only former British colony to become a republic at independence in November 1978? The country had been colonized by both the United Kingdom and France. Its decision to immediately become a republic deserves greater study.”

Dr. O’Brien details why the British colonies retained the Crown.  He observed:  “Such loyalty to the British Crown requires an explanation, especially in a region that had been so ravaged by the experience of slavery and where the majority of its citizens were direct descendants of those former slaves.”

Dr. O’Brien argues that the loyalty to the Crown is traced to the slavery era. As was the case in The Bahamas, many former slaves in the region mistakenly believed that Queen Victoria played a pivotal role in emancipation.

As noted previously in this column, the historic irony is that though Victoria was praised by slaves for emancipation, it was actually King William IV who signed the declaration of Emancipation. Still, Victoria was viewed as a liberation symbol.

The emancipation of slaves was not mostly about these ancestors being benevolently freed. The larger, more compelling narrative is that of centuries of struggle and resistance, including by Bahamian freedom fighters over generations.

A late parent often recalled that her father, among a number of other Bahamians of his generation, refused to allow her and her siblings to attend the annual Empire Day on Fort Charlotte. The older man bristled at Bahamian children lining up obsequiously to pay obeisance and fealty to the British monarch and empire that had enslaved their ancestors. Yet there were many others happy to participate in the pomp and ceremonies presided over by the British Governor and mandarins.

Colonial administrators utilized Emancipation Day to encourage loyalty to Britain and the Crown. They also utilized coronations, royal visits, jubilees, and other occasions “as a way of reinforcing veneration of the Crown,” even after Victoria’s death.

University of Maryland Senior Lecturer Anne Spry Russ’s “research interests include the nature of identity and culture in the modern British Empire, with an emphasis on imperial identity in the twentieth-century Caribbean and British Isles.”

“From at least the turn of the nineteenth century,” she writes, “imperial propaganda…helped to develop in West Indians habits of mind that created strong ties of loyalty to the British monarchy, “[with] the British monarchy [becoming] part of the fabric of everyday life” in the Caribbean.

Deeply aware of the popularity of the Crown, the Caribbean’s political directorate, with notable exception in Guyana, pledged loyalty to the Crown. This included Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, which achieved independence respectively on August 6th and 31st, 1962, just over a decade before The Bahamas.

But, as Dr. O’Brien notes, “Attitudes amongst political leaders toward retaining the Crown as head of state have, however, shifted significantly since the independence era.” Except, it seems, for one or two states, including The Bahamas, where neither of the major political parties appears to have any strong appetite for our becoming a republic.

In Barbados, both of the major parties supported the country becoming a republic. The move toward republican status was achieved through a vote of parliament. It did not require a referendum, though the majority of Barbadians supported the change.

In Jamaica, both the Jamaica Labour Party and the People’s National Party favour becoming a republic, but a referendum is required. Becoming a republic will require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and a referendum with the majority of Jamaicans approving the change.

Yet as Dr. O’Brien opined:“Despite consensus among Jamaica’s political parties about the desirability of replacing the monarchy with a republican form of government, the need for popular approval in a referendum may ultimately thwart the initiative.”

In The Bahamas, the road to independence was more complex and fraught than many may now recall. The Hon. Arthur Hanna and other progressives wanted an independence date earlier than the more conservative Sir Lynden. Many in the country were fearful of breaking from Great Britain, including some who were a part of a separatist movement on Abaco, which wanted to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Today, the British Monarch remains head of state in just 15 nations: Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom.

Notably, a number of these countries are inexorably moving toward republican status.

A number of observers have noted that The Bahamas will inevitably become a republic. But death is also an inevitably, which could take a long time and is often fraught with pain and great difficulty.

Despite this stagnancy and regression on a number of levels, there seems to be scant interest by political and opinion leaders and others to begin to make the case to the Bahamian people about eventually moving toward a republic. 

There is no appetite in the populace for change. But good leaders cultivate the appetite and impetus for change. Neither political party even seems to have a philosophy or position on our becoming a republic. Few commentators seem to even understand the reasons and rationale for becoming a republic.

When we “inevitably” become a republic, it will not be because of strongly held convictions by the political directorate and a majority of the populace.

It will more likely be because it would look too embarrassing not to be a republic, and embarrassing for the British Crown. It may require British officials whispering in our ears:  “It really is time to go!”