The difference between campaigning and governing

Thu, Feb 26th 2015, 01:12 AM

Dear Editor,

We are used to the unattainable promises we hear from politicians every election period. We are used to the endless pledges of jobs and opportunities. You would have to be a fool to believe everything promised by politicians will actually come to pass.

We are promised no taxes, ever again, then we wake up with a 7.5 percent value-added tax (VAT). Then National Health Insurance is right around the corner says the minister of health. We will tax you for that as well, he reminds us.

You would have to be naive to believe that the government, in a non-industrialized nation, can operate and provide all of the needed services (education, health care, garbage collection, effective law enforcement, education, etc.) and not raise taxes.

What most of us are not used to, and probably will not get used to, is a new tendency go back on specific, explicit election-time promises, after having been elected and entrusted to run the country. When the government said, "If you vote no, all numbers houses will be shut down immediately", we actually expected all number houses to be closed.

Now, the current Bahamian government is making another crucial mistake. It is still campaigning when it should be governing (making tough decisions that are in the best interest of the people - whether the people agree or not). If the government had come out and said, "We will not have a gaming referendum, but we will legalize gambling because we believe that it is in the people's best interest," we could live with that level of honesty, although I voted no. I am personally appalled by the handling of this issue and other similar failures by the government.

Particularly disappointing is Minister of Immigration Fred Mitchell, who recently rolled out a new government policy as it relates to immigration. First, there is only one new item in this policy and that has turned out to be a total debacle. The new item is discontinuation of travel documents to non-Bahamian children born in The Bahamas. Minister Mitchell contends that the travel documents have disadvantaged the children therefore they have decided that all children born to non-Bahamians must apply for the passport of their parents country. The children will then be given a permit to supplement the foreign passport.

How will this make things easier for the children? It does not! Minister Mitchell has somehow managed to surround the issue with so much confusion that both the public and the government (this includes the opposition as well) do not really understand what is going on. The result is that they all have stood by and allowed a fundamentally flawed new policy go forward. Let us look at some of the fallacies in this "new policy".

Fallacy one
It was rolled out four months ago and up to this point the necessary Belonger's Permit is still not available. Persons cannot get travel documents. So we have a predicament on our hands, but the minister still has not acknowledged that we have created a problem when there was no problem. There are persons who want to and need to travel and cannot, because they do not have a travel document, nor a permit. What should they do now?

Fallacy two
The minister says that the permit will allow the children to do things that they could not have done when they had a travel document. Would someone in the media ask the minister to give examples?

With a travel document the child was able to obtain a bank account, get jobs, get a U.S. visa which opened the doors of the world to that child. What advantages will that child be afforded with the "new policy'', minister? The minister has created a problem where there was no problem. The American Embassy had no problem issuing a visa on the Certificate of Identity for these children. So why the changes now? Is there something we are not being told?

Fallacy three
Number three is an extension of number two. Will the U.S. Embassy support this initiative by not rejecting the visa applications of these children? I think the minister has intentionally avoided this one, because his has become aware that his ill thought-out policy will actually prevent these children from traveling in addition to creating an inferior class within an already depleted middle class. So we have created another problem where there was no problem to begin with. Why? Will the minister now sit with the American Embassy and determine what impacts, if any, this will have on the children accessing a U.S. visa?

Fallacy four
Minister Mitchell has said that the new policy will make things better for the children. In absence of facts to the contrary, we are apt to believe the minister. We would believe that he cared for the children enough that he would only stop the issuing of travel documents, which provided them with some level of comfort, and implement a permit, whose first draft is now going to Cabinet for the first time in four months, if he genuinely believed that it would be of benefit to them.

Clearly then, there were mistakes in his reasoning, as the permit does not give the children access to things that they didn't have access to before. Obviously something went wrong during the planning stages, as in practice this policy does not promote caring, but something else entirely. Problems have been created for innocent children where there previously was no problem! It has been said that the new policy was not well thought out, because its aim was more about maintaining popularity than actually fixing the immigration problem.

We wish that government officials would understand that there is a difference between campaigning and governing. Understand that the people expect hyperbole during election season, but a level of good governance in the aftermath. In this case, practical solutions to real problems might have done the government more good that campaign hype. Why create a problem, when there was no problem?

After four months the permits are still not ready. And there is no timetable as to when they will be ready. The minister said that there are things that the children will be able to do with the permit that they weren't able to do with the travel document. I respect the office of the minister, but that is simply incorrect.

Children with the travel document could have done all of the things that the minister is suggesting that they could not have done before, like open bank accounts, hold down jobs, get a visa to travel the world - as was recognized by the U.S. Embassy. We are not even certain if the U.S. Embassy will frown upon this. And we wonder if the minister even yet knows that the children will be placed at a disadvantage in this regard.

- Name withheld

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads