The Tribune

FINANCIAL FOCUS

By LARRY GIBSON

While in a restaurant 
recently, a friend and her party happened to be seated at the table next to mine. She immediately began to engage me about the fact she had not seen a column from me in a very long time. I tried to explain how busy I was with personal and work matters. She would hear none of this, and then. after apparent reflection. she blurted out: “I believe that the Government must have you gagged.” Needless to say, those seated at her table and mine erupted into rapturous laughter. It was then that I committed to ,once again, pick up my pen in order to eliminate any such fear.

Today, I will share some of my observations about the proposed upcoming referendum on gaming, or certain aspects of it. In fact, I believe that the scope has been narrowed just to the legalisation of the numbers industry.

Perspective

Just recently, I had to take my car to the garage for repairs. While being driven back to my workplace by an employee of the garage, the gentlemen, who looked to be in his early 50s, asked: “What do you think of the referendum?” This question immediately started a lively interchange between the two of us on the subject. Towards the end of the conversation, he proclaimed that he will not support it because he gambles now and, if it becomes legal, he fears he will spend his entire day gambling. His rationale was: “At least now, when I am in the web shop, I am constantly looking over my shoulders seeing who is coming in. If it is legal, I would spend my whole day in there gambling.” For me, this was a completely different perspective on the issue… one through the lens of an admitted and regular numbers buyer.

Law versus Referendum

If a government wishes to legalise (or regularise the numbers business), it can simply amend existing laws on the books or introduce new legislation.

Successive governments in the Bahamas have turned a ‘blind eye’ to the numbers business and other forms of illegal gaming since time immemorial. Why has this been the case? If the truth was told, the great hypocrisy is that many electoral campaigns have benefited from political contributions derived from such activities. Therefore, the existence of a massive ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘crisis of conscience’ have overwhelmed the need to do what is right and in the nation’s best interest.

Ruling political parties have pretended that the numbers business did not, and does not, exist. A natural consequence of such political inaction over the years is that the industry has grown exponentially, and some operators have grown obscenely wealthy. I am reminded by a quote once said by a noted economist, when he admonished that: “A majority view can be nothing more than a well-financed minority view”.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a referendum as “a general vote by the electorate on a single political question by the electorate, which has been referred to them for a direct decision”. A referendum is rarely used in most countries, and in the “British Commonwealth” context it almost always relates to constitutional issues.

Citing Wikipedia: “There are two types of referendum that have been held by the UK government, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of ‘No’ for a proposed law, the [UK] parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.”

The implication of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ is that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, but convention and tradition would make it unlikely that a future Parliament would reverse a decision approved by referendum.

The Christie Administration has taken the position that they will go the referendum route as opposed to the legislative route on this issue. While this administration must be given credit for attempting to address this issue, the end result will not be as simple as whether the people voted ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the question of legalising the numbers industry.

Framing the question

For instance, something as simple as how the question is written (framed) is not as straightforward as one might think. According to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network (ACE): “An important issue relates to the wording of the referendum question or ballot text put on the ballot paper.

“Studies suggest that the wording of the question can have an important effect on the outcome of a referendum. Who determines the exact question that appears on the ballot is therefore significant. Is the Government responsible for framing the question, even in cases when the Government initiates the referendum and therefore has an interest in designing the question to increase the chances of achieving its own desired outcome?

“Does the Electoral Management Body have oversight of the question? Whoever designs the question, it is important that the question put to voters is clear and straightforward. Studies have generally shown that when voters are in doubt about a referendum issue, they tend to be conservative and maintain the status quo.”

Public Information

In order for an electorate to make an informed decision, it is incumbent upon any responsible government that sponsors a referendum to provide the electorate with pertinent information, so that they can make the best possible decision based on their religious, moral, philosophical and social compass.

Again quoting ACE: “The role of the Government in a referendum campaign can also be important. Is the Government allowed to campaign for the outcome it supports? Does it distribute its own promotional material or run government broadcasts outlining its views?

“Similarly, if there is a neutral source of information, separate from the Government and referendum campaigners, and/or are there requirements providing for the dissemination of non-partisan information about the issue to voters?

“Does the Electoral Management Body have a role in providing information to voters? If information is provided through a neutral channel, who can put information into that channel? Voters may be more inclined to trust information from sources other than campaigners, and a source of information that is perceived to be neutral will be important to many voters.”

Post referendum

So, while prima facie it appears that a referendum is a clever way of dealing with this issue, it is not as simple as saying that the people determined ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Implementing the decision of the people requires a host of subsequent actions once the ultimate decision has been made.

It can be argued that, in order for the electorate to make an informed decision, they must be given insight as to what will be the outcome of that decision either way. Surely this must be ‘part and parcel’ of the process. Shouldn’t a government put in circulation a paper stating its proposed policies and actions post-referendum?

If the initiative is defeated, it cannot be business as usual. The Government must be compelled to enforce the existing laws of the land or amend them. If the current state of illegality persists after the referendum, are we then to assume that an amnesty is in place, and all and sundry can take to the tables and freely gamble? If the law prevails then it is reasonable to ask: “What will be the plan to shut down existing operations? What will happen to confiscated and seized assets?”

However, if the initiative passes… then what? I believe the electorate should have some insight into this before they vote. A few questions which immediately come to mind include:

• How is it proposed that this industry will be regulated?
• What will be the structure?
• Will there be a National Lotteries Board?
• Will there be a single National Lottery, or a series of licensed participants?
• Who will be grandfathered?
• What will be the revenue sharing arrangements?
• What are the proposed licensing and fee arrangements?

We are being told that the referendum is a campaign pledge being carried out. This suggests that the questions raised have been fleshed out, and it is only a matter of time before they are widely circulated.

Public relations

We have already begun to see TV, radio and print media advertisements sponsored presumably by those engaged in the numbers business. No doubt the frequency and intensity of such media campaigns will increase once a referendum date is announced.

While the theological position on gaming is very clear, it is also incumbent upon the Church to speak with a unified voice - within and outside of the pulpit - on this matter. Just as the proponents of this initiative are mobilising themselves… so, too, must the Church.

Wider issue

I am also finding that there is a larger-than-expected number of Bahamians who feel that the wider aspect of the gaming issue is not being addressed in this exercise. That is: “Is it really constitutional to have laws on the book that systematically discriminate, based solely on citizenship and residence”. The fact that Bahamians cannot gamble in the casinos because they are Bahamian, while all other nationalities are openly invited and encouraged to do so, surely must be discriminatory and an affront to the laws of natural justice.

If the law said ‘black Bahamians’ or ‘conchy-joe Bahamians’ could not gamble in the casinos, there would be pandemonium. Is not the banning of a ‘right’ to all citizens, in their own country, of an activity freely afforded to non-citizens, just as egregious? I find that this situation does not sit well with many intellectuals in our society. However, I guess that this is a discussion for another day.

Until next week…

NB: Larry R. Gibson, a chartered financial analyst, is vice-president - pensions, Colonial Pensions Services (Bahamas), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Colonial Group International Ltd, which owns Atlantic Medical Insurance Ltd and is a major shareholder of Security & General Insurance Company in The Bahamas.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Colonial Group International or any of its subsidiary and/or affiliated companies. Please direct any questions or comments to Larry.Gibson@atlantichouse.com.bs