The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

THE reactions of Progressive Liberal Party politicians to the failed gender equality referendum is a stark turnaround from the positions taken following the first attempt to change the Constitution in 2002.

For several senior PLP ministers, the concessions appear to be an ironic role reversal of their stance against the process undertaken by the Ingraham administration.

On February 27, 2002, voters were asked whether they approved of the removal of gender discrimination from the Constitution; the creation of a national commission to monitor the standards of teachers; the creation of an independent parliamentary commissioner; the creation of an independent election boundaries commission; and the increase of the retirement ages of judges from 60 to 65, and from 68 to 72 for appellate judges.

The questions were overwhelmingly rejected, with Bahamians voting against the question on constitutional change by 66 per cent.

Speaking to an exhilarated crowd at the party’s headquarters that night, Prime Minister Perry Christie, then opposition leader, called the results “enormously gratifying.”

He said: “Today truth has emerged victorious. It is a bright and joyous day for the Bahamas. This is not an occasion for gloating. For those of us that campaigned so vigorously for the results that have been achieved have won a victory for the Bahamian people.”

Then Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham conceded defeat in a short statement that night, accepting “full and complete responsibility” for the overwhelming “no” vote. He described the outcome as a “rejection of the last but one of my assignments.”

At a press conference the following day, Mr Ingraham said he was ashamed that voters decided not to bring the country in line with international conventions on equal rights for women, but ultimately accepted the will of the people.

Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson – then the PLP’s candidate for Pinewood – told The Tribune that Bahamians were on the “right side of history” having been led by religious leaders. She said it was obvious that Bahamians felt the process was too rushed, adding that Mr Christie’s turnaround on the issue had “positive and instructive” effects that should not be underestimated.

“Bahamian voters are not stupid and they will not be duped or manipulated,” she said in 2002. “Further, they will not be swayed to make decisions about their children’s future based on someone’s personal experience relayed to the public through what could only be jaundiced eyes.”

“With circumstances in mind it is not surprising that the referendum was so soundly defeated.

“Gone are the days when the majority voted on sheer emotionalism,” she added.

Minister of National Security Dr Bernard Nottage, then leader of the Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR), said the results showed that Bahamians “spoke as they ought to.”

“I think they have said firstly that the constitutional proposals submitted by the government will not gain their support,” Dr Nottage said. “I think they are saying secondly that they did not like the process of reviews and I think they are protesting against the process. Thirdly, I think that the expenditure of money, the hogging of the airwaves, the monopolising of the newspapers, and the necessary expenditure of vast amounts of money spent by the government has been rejected by the people of the Bahamas.”

Dr Nottage said he always had confidence that the Bahamian people would do “what is in their best interest.”

Two days before the 2002 vote, the CDR leader took to Rawson Square to protest against the changes alongside Coalition-Labour candidate Halston Moultrie. Dr Nottage spoke in front of a coffin, which reportedly signified the death of democracy in the Bahamas. MICAL MP V Alfred Gray was also present to lend support for the common goal. Dr Nottage then led a march to ZNS claiming his group was treated unfairly by the Broadcasting Corporation of the Bahamas. He said the government “used public funds, resources and employees to hold public forums and spread partisan propaganda.”

Dr Nottage’s rebuke of ZNS, and the government for its treatment of opposition campaigns, draws a direct parallel to claims by Save Our Bahamas that it was unfairly victimised in the lead-up to the 2016 vote. In the months leading up to the referendum, Save Our Bahamas and other groups repeatedly hit out at the government for ignoring their requests for equal funding for their “no” campaign.

Flash forward to June 7, it was Save Our Bahamas member Pastor Lyall Bethel who urged supporters not to gloat over the victory as it became clear that the referendum had failed.

Mr Christie did not issue a statement on referendum night, instead PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts acknowledged the loss.

The following day, Mr Christie conceded that he was personally “disappointed” with the event’s outcome. He told the media he had hoped that the country would have voted “yes’”, therefore lifting the Bahamas to an historic level.

He insisted on Wednesday that the results of the referendum in his view were not an expression of a lack of confidence in the government, underscoring that every effort was made to ensure that the process was bi-partisan and transparent.

However, in 2002, his party was insistent that the failed vote necessitated an immediate resignation from Mr Ingraham. Leading the charge, perhaps most vehemently, was Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell, at the time a PLP senator, who said the outcome had vindicated his decision to vote “no”. He congratulated Mr Christie and his team for the “skilful manner” in which it was handled.

“The Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and his party, the Free National Movement, went down to resounding defeat on Wednesday, 27 February, 2002,” Mr Mitchell said. “Their spin doctors and apologists are trying to make-up all sorts of stories about the whys and the wherefores. The simple fact is they were beaten and beaten convincingly.”

Mr Mitchell also said: “The lesson for the PLP is that the role of a political party is to shape public opinion, not the other way around. We must be informed by public opinion but the duty to lead is the role of a political party.

“On the other hand we have nothing but scorn for this jackass that we call our prime minister. He had to concede defeat just after 9.30pm on the night of the referendum. But the next day, he was back true to form,” he said.

“He refused to resign making some spurious distinction by saying that this was a vote, not against the FNM and himself, but against the issues raised in the referendum.

“That is utter foolishness and is at variance with every known convention of the Constitution,” Mr Mitchell had said in 2002.