"We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness."- George Orwell, "1984"

August 19, 1992 marked a monumentally momentous milestone in Bahamian history. On that date, the Free National Movement (FNM) defeated the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) at the polls in a general election, ending 25 consecutive years of the latter's governance of these islands.

A majority of Bahamians had tired of the PLP's vise-grip on the reins of political power that itself had been catapulted into office on the landmark occasion of majority rule. The ascendancy of the FNM to government decisively demonstrated that the Bahamian electorate could peacefully correct the ship of state when, in its collective wisdom, it was convinced that the country had lost its way and drifted off course.

It was also the date that, in the words of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, ushered in what he described as "government in the sunshine", which was intended to bring about greater transparency and accountability in governance, which its proponents suggested was distinctively different from its predecessors in office.

Therefore, this week, we would like to Consider this... Have we remained faithful to the promise of government in the sunshine?
Since government in the sunshine presupposes greater transparency and accountability of public officials, let us examine some of the elements of these concepts.

Transparency and accountability

Transparency entails the right and responsibility of citizens to critically examine the process of decision-making in matters of national importance. It is a means of holding public officials accountable and exposing corruption by those officials. Transparency also engenders a degree of openness to the press and the public, the free exchange and candid conversation on national issues, and is intended to provide less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the process and system of governance for their own interests.

The enemies of transparency in public affairs often adopt an attitude of arrogance, privilege, entitlement and secrecy in the decision-making process, which can often lead to corruption and, in extreme cases, dictatorship. Accountability in public affairs also entails a willingness of a government to inform the public about the decisions and actions taken, including the cost of such decisions and the effectiveness of policies it has implemented.

A government that is neither transparent nor accountable often makes decisions behind locked doors, where citizens have little opportunity and fewer possibilities to influence political decisions between elections. Transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of participative democracy. Its opponents, on the other hand, reject this ideal and relegate unto themselves the "divine right" or presumptive propensity to make decisions in the interest of the people who have elected them, often without those voters' participation or consultation.

Mature democracies
Mature democracies encourage greater participation by an informed electorate. In order to accomplish this, such democracies have established processes that invite constructive criticism of government policies, encourage a free press, free expression of ideas that are often opposed to government policies, freedom of information laws, progressive campaign finance legislation and laws that foster lobby transparency.

For example, Sweden enacted public access to government documents laws as early as 1766 and similar laws have been adopted by many of the countries of the European Union.

Our neighbors to the north have adopted campaign finance and lobby transparency legislation, which have significantly fortified greater transparency and accountability of public officials. Interestingly, one of the things that has made Donald Trump's presidential candidacy so attractive to some voters is that he proclaims himself to be self-financing and free from the influence of self-interested lobbyists.

Closer to home, the Turks and Caicos Islands have established an Integrity Commission to ensure that all public officials, including senior public servants, are required to formally file annual declarations of their finances.

The modern Bahamas
In The Bahamas, we have paid persistent lip service to greater transparency and accountability of our public officials. Parliament has even passed legislation that mandates that elected and appointed Parliamentarians annually disclose personal financial information. However, politicians on both sides of the aisle have blatantly ignored the laws that they themselves have enacted, often shamelessly ignoring this legal requirement.

The result of completely ignoring this law is that politicians are not seriously held to account for the increase in personal wealth that results from their public activities, often leaving the electorate to speculate about the sources of the fortunes that they manage to amass while in office. The Public Disclosure Commission is equally guilty of negligence in enforcing the public disclosure laws, which effectively amounts to a serious dereliction of its duty.

Parliament has also passed, but not brought into force, the Freedom of Information Act, and we are no closer to ensuring that this important legislation affords the electorate with access to vitally needed information about the operation of government.

Notwithstanding repeated promises by successive governments to enact campaign finance legislation, we have collectively contributed to the abuses that arise regarding the unknown and undue influence that such contributors make in return for large, albeit undisclosed, campaign contributions.

The public can only surmise what outlandish promises are made by politicians, either overtly or implied, to donors who are eager to contribute to our political parties. Recent media disclosures have accentuated the urgent need to correct this deficiency that could have the devastating effect of depreciating our electoral process and demeaning our leaders.

We have collectively adopted a callous nonchalance about holding our politicians to account for the promises that are made to political contributors. The principal casualty for such neglect is a compromised electoral process and a view that, once again, we are a nation for sale to the highest bidder.

Conclusion
The time has come to honestly assess whether we will support politicians who are beholden to carpetbaggers who surreptitiously seek to solicit specific and implied quid pro quos from those who seek public office. Government in the sunshine demands that we expose those who seek to undermine our democracy by extracting favors from their "horses in the race" to Parliament.

We should do whatever is necessary to expose those who would seek to sell our birthright to persons who believe that they can stealthily negotiate our patrimony behind closed doors in the dark of night. Such peddlers of influence must be made to understand in no uncertain terms that The Bahamas is not for sale. It must be made patently clear to them that, in the words of George Orwell's landmark novel "1984", we are resolutely committed to government in the sunshine and that "we shall meet in the place where there is no darkness".

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