The Tribune

THE general election is in one week and we still do not know how the process will be managed given the increasing number of COVID-19 cases in the country. By now, we should know the measures being taken to keep us all safe and what is required of us to keep each other safe as we exercise our rights to participate in the election.

There are usually long lines and an abundance of loud, sometimes obnoxious, banter between party supporters. Necessary documents pass through people’s hands, unused ballots are handled, the same writing utensil is used, and thumbs are plunged into indelible ink. Will there be any changes to this process?

We have seen guidelines change as new information emerged. We have seen backtracking on a few changes, and we continue to see inconsistencies in measures put in place all over the world. Not only do we need to ensure everyone is wearing a clean mask at the polls, but that we reduce contact between voters themselves and between voters and poll workers. We also need to ensure surfaces are consistently sanitized.

All of this will require preparation and planning for what we know will go wrong and for what may occur. That includes having masks available for those whose masks do not meet requirements, markers to indicate where people need to stand to maintain social distance, clear barriers where people need to speak with one another, speaker systems to compensate for the loss of volume through masks and barriers, and people to advise, remind and enforce protocols.

The Prime Minister reportedly said: “The polls are safe. You will not catch COVID at the polls,” at a rally in Grand Bahama. We know that we cannot take him at his word. We know the polls will not be safe just because we say they are or just because we need to go to participate in this exercise. They have to be made safer. Nowhere that people gather is safe. Space can only be made safer by measures put in place, and the safety depends on every single person that enters the space.

We have to depend on each other to keep the polls as safe as possible. Some may not even know they are putting others at risk. We know people can have COVID-19 and be asymptomatic. Because testing is not free, many people have not been tested, do not plan to test, and will never know whether or not they have or have had the virus.

There are many variables and we cannot simply assume the polls or people showing up to vote will be “safe”.

Will there be separate lines for vaccinated people? Will there be separate lines for people with negative results from a test within a certain time period? How many people will be able to stand in line at a time? Will there be a number system so people waiting in their cars to join the line will be kept in the right order? How will car traffic be managed since this process is likely to take longer than usual and cause parking lot overflows? Will there be drive-thru options? Will senior citizens and people with compromised immune systems be fast-tracked or accommodated in another way? How will people who are quarantining be accommodated? What is being done to ensure people affected by Hurricane Dorian are not disadvantaged in this process?

There are more questions than answers, and the snap election has not helped.

We have been wronged, many times over, by the Prime Minister who campaigned on (among other empty promises) fixed election dates, relished the power of his office, and played games with the public — which suspected an early election would be called — by refusing to give a direct answer to the question, only saying the election is due in May 2022. The election is now taking place in the middle of a surge that has stressed the healthcare system and the education system as well as other frontline workers. Adding an election to the mix was completely unnecessary and suggests the Prime Minister expects to lose even more popularity.

It could be that this surge is expected to get worse and take a long time to peak. Perhaps more job loss and increases in the cost of living are expected. We have been warned for months that the cost of groceries will go up by the end of this year.

There is a reason this risk is being taken now. A calculation has been made and it has been determined that it is somehow better to risk lives with an election next week than wait for circumstances to devolve and result in a rapidly decreasing support that would ultimately impact the results of a later election.

It has been suggested a lockdown is coming. There are more cases now — and worse cases — than there were in the first phases during which there was a strict lockdown.

The Prime Minister may have set this election date knowing an increase in restrictions is necessary, but would affect the way people vote. Instead of suffering the fallout from what could be considered a good decision to save lives, he has moved the election up — regardless of the consequences for public health — in hopes of winning and being able to mandate another lockdown. This is definitely strategic, and not something to simply wave away and go about things as usual. If we believe this to be true, we must consider that this decision was made based on prioritisation of the number of votes that could be received over and to the detriment of human lives. Win the election now, and worry about the impact of the exercise on the public health system and people’s lives later? Is that what we want from a Prime Minister?

This election, as in many before it, we need to think about character. We need to think about motive. Last year, transparency and accountability were buzz words bandied about by many, and we have endured more than four years of very little actual transparency and accountability. We continue to play guessing games because information is not readily available and accessible to us. We continue to be unclear on the decisions being made and what prompts them. We continue to be cogs in a wheel, pawns in a game, easily traded for personal gain.

There is no clear path to better governance within the context of the election. It has never been simple. The major parties are interchangeable, lacking in identity, and full of people whose priorities are led by their focus on the longevity of their political careers. Better governance depends on us and our consistent, active participation. Democracy is not limited to the singular act of voting every five years. Governance is not limited to 39 Members of Parliament along with senators. We are the people, we are the employers and we are the ones being represented. Decisions are not to be made for us, but by us and then communicated and acted upon in the House. This has not been happening. Once our votes are cast and the seats allocated, we are largely absent from the process and this has to change, no matter who forms the next administration.

We need people who are prepared to listen to us, and we need to be people who are prepared to speak up. We need people who are going to fully represent us, and we need to be clear, inclusive, and united in the positions we communicate to our representatives. We need to demand better mechanisms to facilitate our participation in governance. We need widespread consultation on issues of national concern, civic education for all residents, and constituency offices that are open during and beyond office hours to facilitate engagement between the people and our representatives.

It is our right to participate in governance. It is also our right to reject the options presented to us. In general elections and in many other areas, we are presented with severely limited options and expected to choose, but we can demand more. It is not enough to cast a ballot and sit on the sidelines. It is not enough for political parties and candidates to post signs and distribute paraphernalia and then tow the party line. In fact, that is unacceptable. It is not enough to present manifestos and charters, thrown together without our involvement, and expect us to make a decision we will live with for five years. The document themselves are lousy, low-level lists of vague promises that are not evidence-based, rights-based, strategic, inclusive, or connected to any set of actions or timelines we can assess now or monitor and evaluate later. They barely even use the terms “climate change” or “disaster” which tells us much of what we need to know as we continue to live through a global pandemic and the effects of Hurricane Dorian. Are their priorities our priorities? What does it mean that they are not the same? What does this require of us?

One way to have our say is to participate in processes developed by non-governmental organizations that are committed to making The Bahamas a better place for all of its residents, prioritising those who are most vulnerable and excluded. There is still time to contribute to the Feminist Standards for Governance — a community-sourced set of priorities and demands in the areas of health, education, women and LGBTQI+ people, social services, youth, environment, economy and labour, climate change, gender-based violence, and disaster management — being developed by Equality Bahamas. The survey can be accessed at tiny.cc/feministsgtiny.cc, participants can answer some or all of the questions, and responses are anonymous.

We have to reject the empty promises of politicians and call them to meet the demands of the people. We are, indeed, the government. We are the employers. We bear the cost. We have to set the standard – and that requires more than a vote.