Now that both the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) have quit pretending that they're not taking sides in the upcoming gambling referendum, perhaps there can now be an honest discussion of exactly what's at stake next Monday. Clearly, the government wants web shop gaming regularized. And why wouldn't it? The prospect of putting a reported 3,000 people who work in the industry on the unemployment line must give Prime Minister Perry Christie and the senior leadership of the PLP recurring nightmares.
Also, the government is going broke and will be borrowing additional money it can hardly afford to pay back during the mid-year budget exercise. The tens of millions in revenue that could be generated from a regulated computer wagering industry would provide much needed cash for the public purse. Then there is the prospect of using police resources to close the web shops and continually police the activity - which is likely to continue - while admitting that police have a hard enough time controlling serious crimes as it is.
Factor in the estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people who play numbers on a regular basis being outraged by the government playing parent by curtailing their rights and denying them possible additional income by closing all the web shops and one can see why it would make political sense to regulate the industry. Of course, we must not forget how heavily the web shops owners have reportedly contributed to recent political campaigns. If they were to go, the campaign money would likely follow suit.
Given all that, it follows that PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts would openly advocate for Bahamians to approve the referendum. "A 'yes' vote in the upcoming referendum...legitimizes this viable and profitable industry and removes the 'black market' stigma the industry carried for decades. A 'yes' vote eliminates the current underground cash economy connected with the industry, protects the Bahamian economy and provides a legitimate platform for expanded economic empowerment and ownership opportunities for many Bahamians," Roberts told the PLP Women's Branch yesterday.
"The PLP is now obliged to encourage Bahamians to make this bold and progressive step in the economic interest of the country by voting 'yes' on referendum day." After The Nassau Guardian asked for comment from Prime Minister Christie about the PLP's position, Roberts sought to amend his earlier statement by asserting that the party's true position is for Bahamians to vote their conscience, but despite the neck-breaking speed at which Robert's flip-flopped the damage had already been done. Roberts, a former chairman of the Gaming Board, made his remarks the same day that current Gaming Board Chairman and Fort Charlotte MP Dr. Andre Rollins basically advocated the same thing.
"Based on the long history of Bahamian participation in games of chance and the recognition that historical legal restrictions precipitated the creation of illegal gaming enterprises, it is inevitable that the demand for such activity will persist beyond January 28, even in the face of a no vote," said Rollins in a statement. "The difference is that the government will be under greater pressure to use its law enforcement resources to respond to illegal gaming - resources that are scarce and themselves under increasing pressure to address the scourge of violent crime affecting parts of our country."
These statements come after Prime Minister Perry Christie last week reiterated that his administration had no "horse in the race". The FNM's position The FNM's recent plea for the Bahamian people to vote no to both the regularization and taxation of web shops last week rings somewhat false. When FNM Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis sat in the Cabinet of the previous administration, then Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham had every intention of brining the web shop vote to a referendum, and recently leaked Cabinet information shows that the Ingraham administration would have gone about it in a similar fashion.
The FNM is desperate to put a black eye on the Christie administration after suffering three humbling election defeats, particularly in North Abaco last October. However, no amount of desperation should have prompted last week's announcement. Why would the FNM put itself back into the spotlight on this issue when its message has clearly been rejected by the electorate of late? By announcing its position, the FNM puts itself in the awkward situation of being on the losing side of the issue and looking weak once again.
It would have been better to take a no position than to take one which pits it against the PLP at the polls once again. Further to that, Minnis, though he is loathe to be reminded, previously admitted to The Nassau Guardian that he has no problem with web shop gaming. He now claims that the process has been flawed and that there has not been enough information on how a regulated industry would work. That all would be good and well if The Guardian had not obtained copies of the legislation Ingraham considered introducing in 2010.
It lays out, in meticulous detail, how such an industry would work, making the FNM's claim of confusion somewhat nonsensical. The party should have simply maintained neutrality and claimed credit for doing the work to regulate the industry if it is approved, or jumped on the botched process if it is rejected. However, there is the flip-side in that if the questions are rejected Minnis will be seen to have won a much-needed political victory.
A non-binding promise Prime Minister Christie last week announced that the results of the referendum would be non-binding. Many have wondered how this could be and why would the government waste more than $1 million on something that it might not follow. Why would legislation be passed to allow for the holding of non-constitutional referenda if the government has no intention of abiding by them?
Having been given a mandate by voters last May, it is still somewhat puzzling why Christie has not abandoned this costly opinion poll and simply moved to regulate the industry and put this distracting episode behind him. In any event, maybe now the Christie administration will seriously explain what voting yes or no would actually mean and what it would like the referendum result to be. That would be a welcome discussion among the cacophony of web shop surrogates and hyperbolic religious leaders who have endlessly debated the issue for months.
What people need to make up their minds about now seems less about legislating morality and more about whether there will be serious economic fallout if this industry is closed and if we can stop people from doing it in some other form. The religious aspects seem much less consequential, because really, if the church could have the final say, much of what we now enjoy would likely be off limits. Thankfully, we don't live in a theocracy and the electorate will likely determine what happens either way.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
