Too much to lose, pt. 2

Mon, Aug 29th 2016, 09:13 AM

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

Three weeks ago we published an article entitled "The Philosopher King", in which we observed that "in our modern Bahamas, our smartest and best-educated individuals... have chosen to avoid political office, in many cases leaving the governance of our society to those who generally do not satisfy the qualifications of the philosopher king".

Last week we began and this week we would like to continue to Consider this... Why is it that in the last few election cycles so many of our best and brightest have avoided becoming actively involved in public life?

The early years of national development

In part one of this series, we reflected on the experience of iconic leaders of the 1950s and 1960s who, upon completing their educations abroad, felt duty-bound to return to radically transform the established political, social and economic order that had progressed little from the time that they first departed to study abroad.

That perspective was also shared by many men and women who did not have the opportunity to study abroad, but who, nevertheless, equally and passionately shared the vision of transforming the political, economic and social order into a more just, compassionate and egalitarian society.

Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, "young Turks" were infected by a similar spirit and vision of a better Bahamas that inspired the formation of an organization then known as UNICOMM. UNICOMM was born of a sense of obligation and commitment to national development, transcending the racial, social and political divides. Some of those "young Turks" became actively involved in various forms of public service and today serve at some of the highest levels of government and other areas of civil society.

The imperative to serve
In the last half of the 20th century, there was a genuine desire and almost obligatory imperative for young persons to answer the call to public service from many disciplines, and across the political and racial divide. This radically changed in the new millennium, which evokes the question: What has changed?

What has changed?
One of the significant comments we received from our article on "The Philosopher King" is that there is a scarcity of good candidates today because young, accomplished Bahamians - male and female - have decided in large numbers that they do not need the kind of abuse in their lives that often accompanies public service. They simply don't want to expose themselves or their families to the rigors and intense scrutiny of public life.

That same commentator observed that this is especially true "in the case of female candidates who are subjected to the vilest abuse imaginable - a lot of it from others who are envious of their accomplishments. It's a pity because it robs the country of some terrific talent.

"The other aspect is that this new generation does not seem to have the same sense of personal sacrifice that was so evident back in the day. Nowadays self-aggrandizement from private pursuits seems to generally trump any sense of selfless patriotic duty. Maybe the 'great popular causes' of yesteryear - racial justice, majority rule, independence, and so forth - just don't have modern parallels. As a result, our young people today perhaps just don't feel an overwhelming need to get involved to right the world."

Another respondent related two poignant anecdotes. He recalls that when a sitting member of Parliament was asked why he did not seek re-nomination, the latter responded that "he told his party leader that he would do pretty much anything for the party but run for office".

The other example was that after a prominent candidate lost the election in 1997, his party leader invited a relative of the failed candidate to consider becoming a senator, but he was discouraged by his spouse. Her reason was that, based on what she saw in helping the unsuccessful candidate in his campaign, she would not want anyone she lived with to get involved in frontline politics.

There are other valid reasons that contribute to the paucity of persons offering for public office. So very much is demanded of our MPs by a significant percentage of the electorate, including the pressure that is exerted on MPs to serve as financial benefactors.

One commentator noted that some voters believe that "once a person is elected to Parliament, that person will 'get straight' so it is not unreasonable, and often expected, for a constituent to request that the elected member 'share' his success".

Our political culture is replete with instances where MPs are expected to defray the cost of education, the purchase of household items and other constituent bills, medical and burial expenses and much more. So in effect, "paying" for political support is perceived as not an expense in terms of compassion and facilitation, but as a cold, hard investment. We are all aware of many examples where an individual's public life ends in real financial hardships.

In addition, as a people, we are an extremely jealous lot who do not genuinely celebrate the achievements of others. We are perennially inundated by the overwhelming propensity to accentuate the negatives of persons who offer for public service.

There is a very real danger that, in the current political climate where the MP is expected to be all things to his supporters, when this is not achieved a level of political apathy, disappointment and disaffection seeps into our culture.
Furthermore, there was a time when party leaders sought out good candidates and invited them to apply for a nomination. That has now become the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, we end up with some candidates who voluntarily enter public life for the wrong reasons, namely personal aggrandizement and the perception of financial gain rather than service to the country.

Finally, there are some persons who will not accept a nomination because they lack faith in both the leader and the organs of existing political parties. Many talented, "bright sparks" are not convinced that their talents will be effectively used once they are elected.

Too much to lose
Yet another reason for the disinterest in public office is that many persons believe that there is too much to lose by getting involved in frontline politics.

The demands of steady employment, the burdens of financial obligations and the risk of being unable to meet those obligations are major disincentives for persons offering to participate in frontline politics. There is a profound apprehension that once they become actively involved politically, if they are not financially secure their lifestyle comforts could be seriously jeopardized. They are afraid of political victimization, ostracism and reprisals if they are unsuccessful in their efforts to get elected.

Conclusion
Today's political landscape is dramatically different from that which existed in bygone years. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a deeper, inherent commitment to nation-building, a greater imperative to correcting the social, economic and political iniquities that existed at that time.

Back then, Bahamians had not achieved many of the basic rights that we enjoy today and often take for granted. In those days, we did not enjoy universal suffrage, property ownership, or majority rule, and, because the average Bahamian was not as empowered then as he is today, there was much more to gain than to lose. Today, there is a sense that there is too much to lose.

Also today, we are not as driven by causes that parallel those of our forebears. However, we must be ever mindful that the hard-fought gains that we have achieved as a nation can quickly evaporate if they are not preciously and vigilantly safeguarded.

If we fail to encourage, enlist and inspire our best and brightest to enter public life and employ their talents and innovative ideas, we run the risk of reversing the advances that were achieved by those precursors of progress who selflessly sacrificed to secure our successes. And that will certainly be too much to lose.

o Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis and Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads