The referendum scenario demonstrates to us once again that we have serious challenges with leadership in our country. Prime Minister Perry Christie failed to caucus with his backbenchers in advance of drafting the bills and the questions. Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis failed to consult members of his parliamentary team and bring them into the loop before pledging support on their behalf. The issues that exploded on the floor of the House last week should have been dealt with in parliamentary sessions, behind closed doors. What we face now is a process in free fall, largely as a result of the

arrogance of power. The cause for gender equality is in danger. A lack of unity in Parliament portends doom at the referendum polls.

While there were already early signs that the four constitutional amendment bills the government tabled in the House of Assembly on July 23 were in danger, we can draw two indisputable conclusions from events that transpired in Parliament last Wednesday: politics has crept in, in a shameless and despicable way, and the process that led to the drafting of the bills and the referendum questions was flawed.In one of the most contentious sittings of the House in recent memory, fighting over these important measures erupted among several government MPs.

Tall Pines MP Leslie Miller later called the sitting the most "contentious action" in his political career and predicted that more "rough days" are ahead.

The referendum effort is now at a crucial juncture.

The cause for gender equality seems very near to being defeated without ever making it to a public vote.

This is sad.

After a similar referendum in 2002, it took a dozen years for these issues to again get the national spotlight.

If the measures fail to pass, there is no telling how much longer it would take for them to be dealt with again.

It would require the collective efforts of all who truly believe that all peoples are equal, that both sexes are equal and that gender equality is a basic human right, to reverse the path of doom the referendum is now on.

If, in 2014, we as a people cannot reach agreement on these matters and the process of effecting change, we are not nearly as enlightened as we claim to be.

Whatever we witness in Parliament today would likely give a clear sign of whether there is still hope for success in this latest effort at constitutional reform.

If the effort does fail, it would speak in multiple ways about us as a people; it would send a clear signal that we do not believe in equality, and it would prove once again that we allow our fears to override reasoning.

In the three weeks since the four constitutional amendment bills were tabled, we have seen a lot of fear mongering.

The debate quickly moved away from gender equality to a debate on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

It is a debate that seems now to lack reason and objectivity.

It is fueled by emotions and, to some measure, by belief among some of us that our God did not create men and women to be equal.

In some circles, this is an open discussion where some use religious-based beliefs to support this view.

What we know for sure is that this is too important an issue to be obfuscated by political posturing and hysteria.

We have had a lot of both and we do not yet see a national move to get this effort back on track.

Defects

What we have seen is Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis withdraw the strong support for the bills he had initially pledged.

And we have witnessed several PLP MPs going at each other's throats on the floor of the House during debate on the bills.

In order for the bills to pass, three quarters of the House and three quarters of the Senate must vote in favor of them.

There are growing signs that the bills are in trouble in Parliament.

There are also clear indications that the process that produced those referendum bills had serious defects.

What Prime Minister Perry Christie foolishly banked on most in locking in bipartisan support is a publicly-stated commitment from Minnis.

He said he and Constitutional Commission Chairman Sean McWeeney met privately with Minnis and former attorney general Carl Bethel, the opposition's representative on the commission.

But it is clear that, while that was an important first step, it was not enough.

We are baffled as to why an obvious step in this process was completedly missed.

We were told by several backbenchers that they had no advanced notice of what the specific bills were or what the questions were.

We were also told this by several FNM members of Parliament.

They never had the opportunity to examine the measures and express their concerns in advance of the debate and final drafting of the bills.

We are not surprised then by the harsh tone of the debate in the House.

We are also not surprised by the widening cracks in opposition support for the bills.

As a result of Christie's and Minnis' failure to bring their respective parliamentary teams fully into discussions on these matters, they are now paying the price.

It seems to us that while the prime minister has a genuine desire to effect these long overdue changes to the constitution -- his disingenuous actions on the 2002 referendum notwithstanding -- he poorly executed the current referendum process.

Success at the referendum polls would be more likely if members of Parliament are able to demonstrate to the nation a united front.

We did not expect that they would all agree on everything, but we expected that they would have met privately in their respective caucuses and raised issues with the bills and the questions, then reach concensus on those issues.

But if some of them only got the questions and the bills on July 23 when they were tabled, the chance of that bipartisan commitment holding was not very likely.

The effort was doomed from the start.

What the public now sees is a Parliament in meltdown over these issues and four bills that are now in jeopardy.

Voters do not see bipartisanship on display. They do not see discipline in party ranks on either side.

This is not good for the process, and it has diminished chances for victory at the polls for those who champion equality.

We can all say we believe in equality; all members of Parliament would quickly confirm that they do.

But when the details of the four bills came to light, multiple questions were raised and challenges mounted.

Several MPs are concerned that bill number four would open the door to challenges on same-sex marriages.

That bill would make it unconstitutional to discriminate against someone based on sex.

In his contribution to the debate, Marco City MP Greg Moss suggested that if the government wanted to dismiss the argument that the bill would pave the way for same-sex marriage, it could simply put a provision in the constitution outlawing same-sex marriage.

Bamboo Town MP Renward Wells and Fort Charlotte MP Dr. Andre Rollins also told the House they cannot support that bill.

Rollins went further, using the opportunity to lash out at the PLP leadership, accusing it of targeting independent-minded MPs and threatening to resign as party whip if the whip is on for vote on the bills.

But confusion on the process and those bills was also fed on the outside of Parliament.

We were left wondering how serious the government was in its attempt to secure widespread support for the bills and for the referendum questions that will be put to the people come November 6.

Leader of Government Business in the House Dr. Bernard Nottage said the questions need to be simplified.

Minister of Labour and National Insurance Shane Gibson said he had not yet read the questions.

If Christie cannot get all of his ministers to demonstrate a level of support and seriousness for these measures, he should not be surprised by the double crossing we witnessed from Minnis or by very strong concerns about these bills expressed in Parliament by some PLP MPs and also by FNMs.

Save

It should be clear to the prime minister, as it is to many, that this referendum is on course to fail.

But we believe there is still an opportunity to save it.

McWeeney, the commission chairman, told us last Thursday that question number four -- which is by far the most contentious -- is being looked at.

"What we are inclining more towards now, and this is not settled, is to keep the wording of the amendment, which is limited to just the word 'sex', but to have a definition of 'sex', which would indicate that references to sex relate to male and female, as established at birth," McWeeney said.

We do not know whether this would be enough to quell fears related to this question.

It is interesting to us that the change now being proposed does not go as far as to include what the commission recommended in its report.

The commission recommended that a subparagraph be added to Article 26(4) of the constitution, stating that the article shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provisions "for prohibiting same sex-marriages or rendering the same void or unlawful".

"The effect of this would be to preclude any constitutional challenges to such a law based on alleged discrimination on the grounds of sex and makes the position clear that same sex marriages are not permitted under our constitution and current laws," the commission said in its report.

The commission noted that it received a large number of recommendations, particularly from the religious community to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the constitution."

We do not believe that adjusting question four would be enough to secure a referendum victory.

We are now at a critical moment in this effort.

There is a need for women's organizations and men who are progressive thinkers to galvanize, to meet with the opposition, backbenchers and the prime minister to decide on a realistic approach to move this cause forward.

If some language needs to be adjusted in the four questions, that needs to be done.

There would have to be an honest attempt by Christie and Minnis to reexamine the process, address concerns and bring their members onboard in a true bipartisan spirit.

If there is not an honest commitment from our leaders and from stakeholders in multiple arenas, then the diminishing hopes for success of the bills would be completely lost.

If we all say we believe in equality, if we all genuinely do, then we all have a duty to find common ground.

We believe that a successful referendum would not be a victory for the Christie administration.

It would be a victory for all people who truly believe in equality, who believe that no one should be denied human rights simply because of gender.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian