The Tribune

By TANEKA THOMPSON

Tribune News Editor

tmthompson@tribunemedia.net

THE government last week added another level of uncertainty and ambiguity to the already emotionally-charged proposed constitutional vote by suggesting the process may be abandoned all together, despite its assurances to Bahamian women of its commitment to gender equality.

Having already begun debate on the four Constitutional Amendment Bills and set a November 6 date for the referendum, both Prime Minister Perry Christie and Minister of National Security Dr Bernard Nottage have said that, if there is no consensus, this administration will not step up and give voters a chance to have their voices heard.

The guise of consensus would be more believable if the government had not forged full steam ahead with the January 2013 gambling referendum in spite of a vigorous vote ‘no’ campaign spearheaded by church leaders and a crescendo of opposition from the Free National Movement. More than $1m in taxpayers’ money was wasted on that vote because the government did not properly educate the masses or listen to pertinent criticism on the process.

Perhaps the government is still stinging from the failed vote, which saw a dismally low voter turnout and a rejection of both questions on the ballot. It is understandable that the government would like to avoid the embarrassment of two failed referenda during its term.

The unsuccessful constitutional referendum in 2002 was seen as a vote of no confidence and an indictment on the Ingraham administration, especially after former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham vowed that whoever won that referendum would win the election. Three months after the failed constitutional reform attempt, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was swept into victory at the polls.

Unanimity

Disagreement over the reform process already expressed by members of the PLP show just how hard a fight the government will have to get their bills passed in Parliament, and gives cause to wonder if the referendum will crash and burn before voters get a chance to cast their ballots.

“Whether we have a referendum or not - the Prime Minister has always said that we would not go to a referendum without agreement between the parties concerned,” Dr Nottage told reporters on Friday.

“This is not an exercise in futility,” he added. “If it becomes clear for us that there is not unanimity, then we will not proceed with the referendum. If there is unanimity and we are satisfied that it is genuine, then we will do so.”

A day before Dr Nottage’s statements, Mr Christie also suggested his government may backtrack on its referendum plans if it could not galvanise support in Parliament.

In order for the referendum to take place, the bills must be passed with at least three-quarters support in both the House and Senate.

“There is no prospect of there being a referendum in the Bahamas this year if there is disunity,” the Prime Minister told reporters on Thursday, when questioned over calls from Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Darron Cash for him to apologise for the PLP’s 2002 ‘no’ vote campaign.

“The only way it can work effectively is if sufficient numbers of us in Parliament (support it), that means three quarters, probably 29 votes. But it could only work if we have the majority to pass and we will know that when people vote, even though we have some people now and will say during the debate that they will or will not support it. But we will only know that assuming we have the requisite numbers to go throughout the Parliament and I am assuming that.

“But the next challenge is a comprehensive education (campaign) ... on the referendum and its significance, particularly the women in this country,” Mr Christie added.

Internal issues

Members of the FNM have gone on record saying they will support this process, even though many FNMs are still smarting from the “scars” of the 2002 referendum. Although Mr Cash and Deputy Leader Loretta Butler-Turner have called for clarity in the bills, to ensure that everyday Bahamians understand the proposed changes, neither they nor the party have said they will oppose the process.

So it is expected that the government will have the eight votes of the opposition in Parliament. However there is understandable concern on whether the PLP can convince its own members to support the bills.

Tall Pines MP Leslie Miller offended many women, but no doubt shared the sexist sentiments of many Bahamian men, when he said he had a problem with the constitutional bill that would allow Bahamian women to confer Bahamian citizenship on foreign spouses, a right Bahamian men currently enjoy.

Mr Miller said that a Bahamian woman who marries a foreigner should be taken to her spouse’s home country and supported there by her husband. He spoke as a guest on the Star 106.5 talk show “Jeffrey”.

“If my sister marries a foreigner, I expect for that foreigner to take her home to his country and support her,” Mr Miller said nearly two weeks ago.

“What they bringing him here for? Don’t come to my country and take a job from one of my Bahamian brothers. You are responsible for your family. If I get married to a foreigner, she is coming here with me. A man is the head of his house. He is supposed to be responsible for his family.”

Marco City MP Greg Moss, who has been outspoken against his party on many national issues, has also expressed his reservations on the citizenship aspects of the constitutional bills.

“It is a false paradigm to suggest that in order to remove discrimination against women, in respect of whether their spouses will become Bahamian or not, we must give them the same right that a man has - that his spouse would become Bahamian,” he said on the radio talk show “Connected” with Lester Cox last week.

“There is one other alternative, which is to remove that right from everyone,” Mr Moss added. “I personally do not believe you should be able to buy citizenship by getting married. I think you should be able to buy residency by getting married.”

In a statement released on Saturday, Andre Rollins, the PLP MP for Fort Charlotte, echoed some of Mr Moss’ statements and outlined a myriad concerns he has about the some of the bills.

Debate on the bills is expected to continue on Wednesday and Insight was informed that the government expects to a vote in the House of Assembly on the legislation this week, before moving on Value Added Tax legislation.

Last Wednesday, as Mr Moss rose around 5pm to give his contribution to the debate, Dr Nottage abruptly suspended the session until August 13 although debate was expected to continue until at least 8pm that night.

Some observers have questioned if the government moved to quickly end the session to avoid harsh criticism from one of its own.

It is left to be seen if the Prime Minister can, between now and when the matter comes to a vote, wrangle enough support from his Parliamentarians for the referendum.

In order for the bills to pass and for the referendum ultimately to be successful, he must heed the call for the bills and ballot questions to be made simpler, and clear up all ambiguity, as much as he can, over concerns over same-sex marriage.

However the Prime Minister must also take charge in this matter and let his party know that he wants this referendum, not only because it is a commitment he has made, but because addressing the blatant gender inequality in the Constitution is something we must do as a progressive, free-thinking country. 
He must not let his party members bog the debate down in the shroud of attaining consensus on such an emotive issue, when full agreement will likely never be reached.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Consensus: ‘The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”

• What do you think? Email comments to tmthompson@tribunemedia.net