The Tribune

IT IS unfortunate that so many Bahamians — feeling they were duped by the recent failed “referendum” on gambling — have vowed to shun all future referendums.

This is indeed a pity. If they knew how hard the small FNM delegation fought for the inclusion of a referendum clause in their Constitution at the Independence talks in London, they would demand that the referendum be treated with more respect. The referendum was included to ensure that Bahamians would never lose control of their government. In other words, they would never be crushed under the heels of a totalitarian government — unless, of course, they foolishly let themselves be duped into voting for such a government.

The first and only legitimate issue by referendum – held after the 1972 London talks — was to secure equal rights for women, another issue for which the FNM had put up a strong case in London. However, it was lost in Nassau in 2002 mainly because of red herrings thrown up by the PLP, which after giving the proposal its full support in the House, campaigned against it in the lead up to the day of the vote. The right of a Bahamian woman to be able to confer her nationality on her foreign husband and their children – as could a Bahamian man with a foreign wife — was lost at that referendum. The tragedy was that, not only did men, but a large segment of women, voted against it.

And then there was the “questionable” referendum last year on gambling. It was questionable because in the end it was discovered that, under the Constitution, it did not have to be decided by referendum, the results of which would have been binding. The Christie government quickly changed it from “referendum” to “opinion poll” giving themselves an escape route to ignore the vote. The final cost of that referendum to the Public Treasury is not known. It was estimated at the time at between $1m and $5 million.

However, in 1972 after winning the election – returning 30 PLP, and 8 FNM members to the House – Prime Minister Pindling hurried to London to write a constitution, having announced before leaving Nassau that after their overwhelming victory at the polls, the Marlborough House conference was “just a formality”.

The PLP government decided that it would have 10 PLP delegates to the conference with the FNM having four. The FNM, believing they should have more delegates to represent the 40 per cent of voters who believed “independence at that time was both unnecessary and unwise”, were refused their request for two more to bring their delegate count to six. They, therefore, surrounded themselves with a battery of lawyers. The four delegates (two of them lawyers) were Senator Kendal Isaacs, QC, Senator Orville Turnquest, a senior lawyer later a QC, MP Norman Solomon, and Senator Arthur Foulkes. They retained constitutional lawyer, Eugene Dupuch, QC, as their legal adviser, and Sir Arthur Gratton-Bellow, QC., also a leading UK constitutional lawyer, to assist him. Also joining their legal team were lawyers Senator Henry Bostwick and MP Noel Roberts. Today the only living members of that team are Sir Orville Turnquest and Sir Arthur Foulkes, both later Governor-generals, and Mr Bostwick, QC.

The entrenched section of the proposed constitution — those dealing with Bahamians’ rights and freedoms — was their focus.

The FNM delegation insisted on this, relying on Bahamians’ good sense to use it to protect themselves from the plans that the PLP — as the then government— had to curb their freedoms.

What was seen as then Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Hanna’s “lack of compromise”, which was “seen as a dictatorship move” determined the FNM to fight even harder for the insertion of the referendum clauses. They were solidly backed by the British government.

If Mr Hanna had had his way Bahamians could have found themselves after independence, barred from leaving the country or restricted in their movements within it.

“Mr Hanna,” one of the delegates told the press, “would have given us a constitution that would have put us into a dictatorship right away.” Mr Hanna, also later a governor-general, is also one of the few survivors of that government delegation of 10.

Explaining why the FNM insisted on a referendum, Mr Dupuch wrote:

“The PLP government proposed that the ‘entrenched provisions’ of the Constitution should be subject to change by a vote for two-thirds or three-quarters of the members of each House of the Legislature.

“We pointed out to the British government that if they accepted this proposal they need not waste their time drafting a Constitution, because the opposition’s strength at the present time was less than one-quarter and the government could write a new Constitution the day after Independence … (in the House the PLP had 30 seats to the FNM’s 8).

“We insisted on a referendum, and we got it,” wrote Mr Dupuch.

In a letter to The Tribune, Sir Arthur Foulkes explained that the PLP wanted the power to restrict Bahamians moving from one Bahamian island to another, and if they had skills, to stop them emigrating to another country.

Today, with their 29 seats in the House, the PLP government do not need the vote of the nine FNM members to push whatever measure they want to — including equal rights for women and men — through the House.

On their return from London, on learning of the PLP’s plans for their country, the FNM were criticised for not walking out of the Independence conference.

Replied Mr Dupuch: “No one ever won a battle in retreat. If we had done this the (PLP) government would have had an open field to write their own Constitution — and many of our compatriots would not have liked the look of it.”

Bahamians today should not scoff at their right to a referendum. Their freedoms have been protected as a result of a hard fight by a minority of FNM legislators. They should cherish and guard it jealously and not allow any government to make a mockery of those sections that protect their destiny.