The Tribune

WE are in a new calendar, and many people and organisations are making plans and promises, seeking transformation by December 31. There will be success to varying degrees. The Davis administration is more than two years into its five-year term, and its delivery on its own agenda has, thus far, been unsatisfactory. There are easy wins that it has completely failed to position itself to take. This is a good time for it to take a good look at itself, its failures, and the potential it still has to deliver.

There is a long to-do list for this administration, and our list, as members of civil society, is long too. Members of Parliament represent us. They are employed by us. We must prompt them to take action. We must demand that they take action. We must call them to account.

Here are five areas for consistent practice.

1 Speak the truth, and only the truth. We are far too accustomed to lies. Too many of us have come to expect deception from the government. It is no surprise when it says it will do one thing, and then does another. Being lied to should not be seen or treated as normal. It is an affront, and should be treated as such. We need to call the government out for its lies.

Last month, the prime minister said the gender-based violence bill was passed. This is completely untrue. As has been reported multiple times, there was a draft gender-based violence bill, last updated in 2016, that was being updated further in 2022. In the midst of so-called consultation on the bill, the government drafted a completely different bill. The “Protection Against Violence” bill was drafted, heavily and appropriately critiqued by non-governmental organisations and women’s rights advocates, and passed without proper process. That Act is not the gender-based violence bill, and it is not, in any way, a substitute for the gender-based violence. It is the epitome of a shoddy, rushed, ineffective product.

There is no way that the “Protection Against Violence” Act can be a gender-based violence bill. It does not even have the word “gender” in it. It has been referred to by members of the current administration as “general” and addressing “general violence” when gender-based violence is, as should be obvious to anyone with or without technical training, a specific type of violence that affects specific groups of people based on, as the term suggests, gender. A law addressing gender-based violence cannot ignore gender. The drafters cannot pretend that it does not exist. The current administration decided that it did not, in fact, care to address gender-based violence. Instead, it would focus on “general violence” — not the violence that is specifically affecting women and girls whose stories we read in newspapers and hear on the radio, responding with disgust and anger.

Our disgust and anger has not been enough to warrant a response inclusive of prevention programmes, intervention, and survivor-centred justice. The statistics and the stories were enough for this administration to pretend to do something about the issue, but not enough to follow through. In addition to its decided failure to take the necessary action, it has lied and continues to lie to us. We must not be fooled. The “Protection Against Violence” Act is not a gender-based violence law.

2 Take responsibility for action and inaction. This administration, like every one before it, enjoys the blame game. It points fingers at the previous administration, highlighting what it should have done and somehow left undone, and what it did in error or to disastrous consequences. The Opposition, of course, does the same. It takes the governing party to task, and they go back and forth about who should have done it. “Why didn’t you do it when you were in?”

The government, including the Opposition, needs to take responsibility for itself and what it produces. The bickering does not move us forward. The blame game does not move us forward. It does not even prove helpful for them when general elections come around again. We all know what happens. We do not vote for, but against. It would be great to have something or someone to vote for, but none of the options even have the integrity to acknowledge their failings and resist the urge to shift the focus to someone or something else.

3 Publicly acknowledge and act on what is known to be true and necessary, including human rights standards. The government voluntarily participates in multilateral organisations and review processes, affirming its understanding of and commitment to human rights obligations. It has ratified several treaties and signed many declarations and agreements. We often reference the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), ratified in 1993, yet we are far from full compliance.

The Government of The Bahamas produces reports and sends representatives—often more than necessary—to participate in conversations about the progress it has made toward compliance with various conventions, and to receive recommendations. In these reports and its verbal contributions, the government conveys that it is aware of the meaning of the text and what it obligates it to do, and that it is important for it to come into compliance. This is clear in the way that the government does its best to portray itself in a positive light, highlighting every single miniscule detail that it can find that might come close to suggesting that it is making an effort. Representatives of the government do not show up to tell these bodies that the government finds the convention unnecessary, or that it does not like the recommendations, or that it has no intention of coming into compliance. They want to make the government look good, and they know that this means at least pretending to care about and be committed to human rights.

In The Bahamas, however, government officials speak as though they have no idea what human rights are or who is entitled to them. They speak as though they are under undue pressure by organizations like the United Nations, and being forced to participate in processes with which they disagree. They do not report to the Bahamian public on what they sign, ratify, and adopt, nor do they report on the actions they seek to undertake and how they are related to those commitments. They certainly do not report on the recommendations given to the government during the periodic reviews. That falls to the media which, of course, is selective in the recommendations that it picks up and reports based on issues of the day and sufficient sensation for sales and clicks.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited The Bahamas in late November 2023. As with all such groups, this visit was welcomed by the government. Several news stories covered some of the findings that were in the Working Group’s report after visiting detention facilities and meeting with various stakeholders and experts. Rather than accept that the Working Group carried out its work as expected and produced a report with findings that could have only come from its research on the ground, the Minister of National Security took a ridiculous approach, criticising the report. He delivered truly unacceptable excuses for human rights violations that only served to demonstrate his and the current administration’s inability to assess existing systems and practices to identify the changes that need to be made.

If the critique is that people are detained for more than five days, “if you are charged on a Friday having been in custody for five days, there is no court to bring you before on a Saturday or a Sunday, and so you will end up being in custody for seven days” is not an argument of any merit. Why is a person held for five days without charges? If that is unavoidable, why is there no provision in place to deal with the matter on the weekend? What is the government prepared to do to eliminate human rights violations?

In 2024, we need to be spared the lies. We need to be spared the excuses. We need the government to work for us. We need to use our power—the power of the people—to hold government officials accountable. We must demand better, and not feed into the party-versus-party nonsense that they use to distract and divide. We need to move the country forward, for the benefit of us all. That requires clear vision, honest communication, civic engagement, decisive action, strong critique, and responsive systems and processes.