The Tribune

A FEW WEEKS ago, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham personally distributed the Free National Movement (FNM) manifesto to each of the 38 FNM candidates on stage at a mass rally. He wanted everyone to have a manifesto in hand, because it represented the plan by which they would be guided and should adhere.

I wanted to think it was ceremonial, but the Prime Minister truly gave me the impression that the candidates were no more aware of the contents of that document than anyone in the general public.

In other words, they had absolutely nothing to do with shaping the party's agenda (token inputs not considered) and therefore the agenda of the hopeful next government.

The move reinforced my belief that candidates barely matter. Nonetheless, I am committed to continuing my pursuit of the candidate in Nassau Village deserving of my vote.

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) candidate Dion Smith, FNM candidate Basil J Moss and Democratic National Alliance (DNA) candidate Christopher Mortimer are the three men vying for the vote, and I am considering each equally, because party allegiance aside, I have no basis to discredit either of them. Plus, I reject the arrogant view that they should simply be allowed to ride on the coattails of their leaders or parties.

Last week, I looked into the background of the three men. This week, I looked at which candidate was aligned most with my world views.

On the question of citizenship, I liked the fact that Mr Moss called out Bahamian women, for cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

"I know of women who voted no (on the referendum question) and right now are faced with the challenge of trying to deal with their children. I have a daughter that was born in the US, and by virtue of the fact that I am her Bahamian father, she is Bahamian. Why should I be able to do for my daughter what (Bahamian women) cannot do for their daughters and they are as much Bahamian as I am?" asked Mr Moss.

The other candidates muddled their way through a murky response, ending with affirmative statements, "I am clearly against sexist discrimination," for Mr Smith, and "I don't see any issues (with amending the law)," in Mr Mortimer's eyes.

I was interested to hear Mr Mortimer express a view on the question of tourism that "sun, sand and sea cannot be our future".

He said the reality of hotels is going to be with the Bahamas for the foreseeable future, but there is a need to bring about more economic independence.

He referred to the thousands of workers Bahamians employ in Florida, by virtue of "how much we spend there", calling for Bahamians to build local industries and keep the money at home.

All three of the candidates said they believed the Family Islands should not be developed in the same way as New Providence. Mr Moss said,

"We are island people," and the Bahamas should take heed not to allow the Family Islands to develop into metropolises.

On the question of taxes, Mr Smith said he was "100 per cent" for a value added tax system, which aligned with the DNA's position, referenced by Mr Mortimer, to transition to sales and service tax.

Mr Smith said people in the service industry are making off like bandits, because "services rendered go tax free".

As a service-based economy, he said, the Bahamas has outgrown its present system of taxation, and needs a system that would bring more fairness.

I was disappointed every time a candidate gave a murky response to a question, took an evasive position or deferred to a party position.

Mr Moss for example, said he felt strongly about the question of the Bahamas becoming a republic, but he refused to answer the question directly, fearing he would be at odds with his party, which has no public position.

Mr Mortimer said the Bahamas would probably get there one day, but for now, what is needed more than political sovereignty is "good governance".

On more than one occasion, Mr Smith said he needed "more information" and suggested he would first commission research if he had to make a call. I credit him for knowing his limitations, but that is about it. On the matter of tourism, he said, "I am no specialist", which is fair enough, but anyone vying for elective office should be able to articulate, at least, a clear personal opinion on matters of national interest.

On the republic question, Mr Smith said: "You are going to probably hear me say this a lot. I think it needs to be based on studies; based on research."

He did not eliminate the possibility, referring to his son's favourite singer, Justin Beiber, who says, "never say never".

Mr Mortimer was a hot apologetic mess when it came to the question of spousal rape. In retrospect, his response was a bit prophetic.

"As it relates to the issue of spousal rape, it is a touchy issue. Let me see how best to answer that. I think rape in any form is something we have to be very mindful of. My concern is that how do we secure women from being abused, and make sure that in securing (their rights) we don't have a system that can be taken advantage of," said Mr Mortimer.

When I pushed the issue and made the matter personal, Mr Mortimer became very definitive. He said he personally believes "no means no, whether you are married or if you are not married", and a woman's right to say "no" should be respected.

Speaking about his son, he said: "I will teach him he has to always respect a woman's right to choose, whether he is married or not. He has to respect a woman's right. That is how I was brought up, and that is how I will bring up my son."

I only wonder why the issue is clear as night and day in his own household, but murky in his political party.

None of the candidates had intimate knowledge of any existing community-based initiatives in their constituency. I thought that reflected poorly on their level of awareness and connection with the community. I asked them to name two community projects they would invest in if they had the financial means.

Mr Smith referred to a lady in the community he spoke to the day before who organises events to help children in the community. He did not know the programme's name and hardly any further details. Mr Moss said he would support "something towards preparing persons for entrepreneurship".

When I pressed, he drew for Carlos Reid with the Hope Centre, who he said "is doing a good job", worthy of emulation.

I thought Mr Smith was honest and frank in his discussion of the nature of Bahamian politics. He said a culture of vote bartering has turned some voters into "mercenaries", looking to pay their mortgages and buy new cars, off the election cycle.

"I find that to be quite difficult to deal with. I think it should not be about hand outs. It should be about the issues and your ideas and how are you going to follow through," said Mr Smith.

I can only imagine the type of demands he has had to resist. He said the situation is problematic, because it creates an unlevel playing field, where persons of "means" are advantaged.

As a member of parliament, Mr Smith said he wanted to always address the concerns of Nassau Village residents.

"When I speak in parliament, they should be hearing their voice," said Mr Smith.

If the topic is crime, he said the Bahamian people should essentially hear through his representation, the specific challenges of crime experienced by the people of Nassau Village.

Mr Moss shared insight on "basic things" he feels any parliamentarian, or aspiring parliamentarian, ought to do for their constituents. He said a constituency office should be a resource centre. It is a view Mr Mortimer shares, whose constituency office is already set up as a resource centre. Win or lose, he said, the centre would stay.

In Mr Moss' constituency office, he plans to house a database with a skills bank, and function as an employment agency of sorts, and he wants Nassau Village residents to support Nassau Village businesses.

"We will ensure that as much as possible that we know the requisite skills of as many of the people in the community. We will seek to find out those persons who are under employed. Every week we will get a listing from the Department of Labour and we will match them up against the skills in our community," said Mr Moss.

Now, after all of my research, I am still left to answer the question, just whose future is worth my vote? Truth be told, I still don't know. I simply did not find enough substance to differentiate the candidates. In the case of Mr Moss and Mr Smith, the FNM and PLP candidates, it will likely boil down to which party's message I buy into more. In the case of Mr Mortimer, the ball game is entirely different.

Why would I vote for Mr Mortimer, when I know the DNA has no chance of forming the next government? Would it be a wasted vote? I thought long and hard about this question. In the end, my answer is, not exactly.

If I were to vote for the DNA, it would not be because I want Branville McCartney for prime minister of the Bahamas, or even because I see eye to eye with the DNA as a party.

Both points are moot: in respect to the former concern, with or without my vote, the DNA will not win enough seats for Mr McCartney to actualise that dream.

With the latter concern, my views are too out of the mainstream to expect to find consolation in any of the contesting political parties.

If I were to vote for the DNA, it would be to express my belief in an ideal, a young, radical, non-conformist ideal that I think is healthy for democracy.

In far too many areas in life, we as citizens of the world, simply take what we get. We are socialised into a system; we develop an unquestioning acceptance of the system, and then become its proponents and prisoners.

Sometimes, I believe, it is important to rebel against the system, to be defiantly audacious, despite all odds and common sense. Our current political system has bred a kind of arrogance and disrespect that spits in the face of people power and works contrary to a system of accountability.

The DNA does not represent the ideal third party to me, but it does represent an ideal that is bigger than Mr McCartney or the party itself. It is the same ideal that Cassius Stewart represented when he was a part of the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM), and Bernard Nottage when he led the Coalition for Democratic Reform. It is a non-conformist seed, and we need those planted in the Bahamas, not just in our politics. A part of me, which is intrinsically at odds with eldership, wisdom and practicality, is moved to support the dreamy idea that the Bahamas could break the back of the two-party political system.

The question is: In the interest of nurturing this little seed, with all of its defects and uncertainty, am I willing to risk that the DNA be a completely failed experiment? Common wisdom advises; stick with the evil you know. The question is, when I walk into the voting booth, who will have my ear: The deviant non-conformist, the measured intellectual or some other persona of influence? Time will tell.

• Email Khalila Nicolls at khalilanicolls@gmail.com