That silently loud no campaign

Wed, May 25th 2016, 01:44 PM

The loudest no campaign is not being run by the pastors in the press, but by a large silent mass of Bahamians who will surely have something to say on June 7. The yes campaign has some notable, educated and articulate spokespeople. It also has a lot of government dollars supporting it. It is desperately trying to plead its case before Bahamian voters. I have to tell them, however, they seem to be losing the battle and are doing so because many Bahamian voters are simply pissed. Why?

First, many Bahamians truly believe that the Christie government is seeking to leave a back door open to the homosexual agenda through question four. They believe that the government has not done all it could to make it unequivocally clear that marriage in The Bahamas can only be between a male and female as defined at birth. Even its appointed constitutional commission made recommendations to this effect, these people say. It does not help the yes campaign that some government ministers, LGBT activists, judges and a QC have muddied the water with controversial comments about the homosexual issue.

Second, there are thousands of voters who voted yes in the 2002 referendum to support gender equality. They are incensed that the same people who campaigned robustly against a yes vote for gender equality then now push a yes vote today; even suggesting that it is wrong and ungodly to vote no now. They are doubly incensed that the same group who argued about process last time have made the process so untidy this time by convoluting it with the issue of "sexual orientation" by failing to put the issue beyond doubt by more clearly wording the questions, especially question four.

There will be thousands of no votes in this referendum mainly because those who voted yes last time regard the Christie administration and many of its yes vote supporters as hypocrites and turncoats who jacked up the 2002 referendum not on conviction of principle, but for the convenience of politics. To their minds, "turnaround is fair play". They have to add to their determination to vote no the fact that in 2002 the issue of homosexuality never distracted from the issue of gender equality as it now does.

Third, there are many who remain heartbroken that Prime Minister Perry Christie and his team put the question of regulating gambling to them in a referendum only two years ago and notwithstanding their no vote, they turned around and still legalized and regulated it. These voters feel disrespected and so many have decided to vote no. They will not be voting against gender equality but against the government they feel has little respect for what they say.

I make no judgement about whether they are right or wrong. I merely express the sentiments they express to me. Admittedly, I understand how they feel just as I understand how those who felt slighted by the PLP's actions in 2002 feel. This is the second of our only two constitutional referendums and we just cannot seem to get them right. Somehow, we cannot prevent narrow self-interest from hijacking what should be a highly principled and community exercise.

This referendum, like the last one, will scorch referendums for generations to come. It is doubtful any government will try putting one forward for a very long time, fearing that when it does, people will remember all too well that we are really not serious about this important national process but tend to take our stands on it depending more on our politics than our principles. I am not a betting man and would have no legal problem doing so now since it is now legal to do so, but if I did gamble I would place my bet on a resounding no vote on June 7, most especially on questions two and four.

To be or not to be

Should the FNM form a coalition with the DNA? No. Why? Because Branville McCartney's ego has no room for others and a possible victory with him will be worse than a defeat without him. Don't get me wrong, the DNA will have something to say about who wins the next election. This is especially true because Dr. Hubert Minnis is not a compelling leader.

If the FNM had a leader who excited the Bahamian population, the issue of the DNA would be no issue at all. However, in the current situation the DNA has more relevance. For a large enough number of voters, the DNA represents a way to place a protest vote against both the FNM and PLP. For those people, neither party seems to be a difference-maker.

If McCartney had a weighty intellectual offering on the issues that matter to Bahamians and showed some humility in his public posturing, he could represent a genuine threat to both parties in the upcoming elections. At the very least, he could be in a stronger bargaining position for a coalition or accommodation.

As it now stands, at best he will be a spoiler in the next election. He has no chance of winning it. It is even doubtful his party can win a seat in the next election, including his own. It does not help that Bran's brand has taken a big hit with the departure of people like Mark Humes, the party's first chairman, and Wayne Munroe one of if not its most intelligent and substantive members. Humes went to the FNM and Munroe to the PLP. This did not surprise me, for it doesn't take long to see that Bran has more intellectual bark than bite and his ego is larger than life.

McCartney knows, however, that Minnis has put the FNM on the defensive. Where the next election should be the FNM's to win, because of Minnis it is in grave doubt. With the DNA pulling thousands of votes, and more likely from the FNM than the PLP, Bran has something with which to bargain. However, a coalition with Branville McCartney would be foolhardy for the FNM. Political coalitions are by their very nature difficult to sustain given that they are often held together by tenuous interests rather than enduring principles. They become near impossible to sustain where the egos of leaders loom larger than life.

A coalition between a FNM led by Minnis and a DNA-led McCartney would be a disaster because McCartney is all ego and Minnis is all insecurity. Imagine that, a man who is too secure in himself trying to sustain a partnership with one who is too insecure in himself, at least his leadership. One man is leader because he wins the vote and the other is leader because he never has to take a vote. Heaven help us!

I don't know what will happen and God knows that something needs to happen. I do know this much, any accommodation between the DNA and the FNM that leaves the DNA and Bran's ego intact will at best be a coalition between a lion and a lamb and no matter who you believe is whom, this you can be sure, the coalition will be broken up by a meal.

o Zhivargo Laing is a Bahamian economic consultant and former Cabinet minister who represented the Marco City constituency in the House of Assembly.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads