"Not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." - Keith Ellison
"Voting is the foundational act that breathes life into the principle of the consent of the governed." - DeForest Soaries
Last Thursday, April 20, was Nomination Day in The Bahamas, officially launching the general election campaign of 2017. The country observed more than 120 candidates from the three major political parties, splinter-parties and independents nominate to contest 39 seats which will comprise the next House of Assembly when it convenes on May 24.
A record number of 174,000 Bahamians have registered to vote on May 10, Election Day, surpassing the 172,000 that were eligible to participate in the last election exercise five years ago.
Therefore, this week we would like to Consider this... What is the sentiment of the electorate and their general attitude toward the impending plebiscite?
Early warning signals
Earlier this year, many were concerned about the snail's pace of voter registration, which prompted many politicians and pundits to ponder whether the pace at which people were registering was portentous for our political process and the potential product of the election.
Did the reluctance of our citizens to register really represent voter apathy and disappointment in and distance from the political process? Or was it a manifestation that Bahamians were genuinely confused and dissatisfied about who they should vote for, finding any of the alternatives neither attractive nor appealing?
Or was the late registration reflective of our cultural propensity to procrastinate, putting off things until we absolutely have to act?
These questions, and others, will assuredly be answered on Election Day. For the moment, however, there are several developments that will greatly impact this election campaign as never before.
Social media
How is social media affecting the tone and tenor of the election campaign? Even before the proverbial "bell was rung" announcing the dreaded judgment day for politicians, we were intrusively inundated with images on Facebook or WhatsApp about political personalities who were featured as the flavor of the day.
Most of the vignettes that were circulated on social media, either in the form of videos, recorded messages or cartoon caricatures, featured politicians and wannabe political aspirants, invariably casting them in a negative, albeit comical or satirical, light.
Many of us have received and have forwarded what at the time appeared to be hilariously episodic representations of those in public life, often the result of a mistake, misstep or faux pas by a politician. Bahamians are fond of berating such iconic personalities with humor and exaggerated levity.
We are probably not aware of the profoundly and powerfully effective role that social media is now playing in developing our perspectives about the persons who are featured in those vignettes and how it is shaping our attitudes toward them, more frequently than not, in a negative, disparaging or critical manner.
The danger with social media is its propensity for hyperbole and perpetuation of fake news, especially salacious stories, baseless accusations and unsubstantiated allegations that take on a life of their own, often without the benefit of being scrupulously scrutinized or fact-checked for accuracy.
In this context, the proliferation of social media has become a negative, and even injurious, influence in imparting accurate information to assist the voter in developing an informed conscience about whom he or she should support on Election Day.
The fact of the matter is that too often we tend to believe what is on social media and quickly accept what is published there without critically examining its veracity.
Greater focus on candidates
As a nation, have our expectations about what we want from a candidate changed? There was a time when the candidate mattered less than which party he represented. In bygone days, if you were a PLP or FNM, notwithstanding your candidate's shortcomings or competence, you stood by your man or woman because of party loyalty.
There are two things that are changing that reality. On the one hand, dyed-in-the-wool party supporters are rapidly diminishing, primarily due to death. On the other, the children of those die-hards are not adopting the same devoted and dedicated political perspective of their antecedents.
Accordingly, the voter today is more demanding and discerning, and less loyal to a particular party. Consequently, the role and focus of the candidate, not the party or even the party leader, is gaining primacy with the voter. The voter is now asking 'What are you going to do for the constituents that you want to represent? Why should I support you? What will you do for me, if elected? Which candidate has greater appeal and will likely do a better job for the country?'
Are we now voting more for the candidate instead of the leader? For example, although you might believe that the leader of that candidate's party is unimpressive and largely deficient, you might support the candidate because having your candidate's voice in the House is a more important reason to vote for that candidate. The focus is slowly but most assuredly shifting.
Take their money, but vote for me
One of the longest lasting legacies of the former United Bahamian Party (UBP) is its artful ability to purchase votes.
It is a practice that has persisted in our modern political reality, sometimes taken to new heights never before contemplated by the UBP. While no political party will ever confess to buying votes, it is an unspoken truth about our political culture. Today it does not only refer to handing out cash. The art has become far more subtle and subliminal.
If it were not so, why would some politicians, from both sides of the political divide, encourage their supporters to, if approached by the candidate's opponent or his opponent's agents, 'take their opponent's money, but vote for the candidate'?
In the past, many voters felt morally obliged to vote for the candidate who demonstrated his "appreciation" to his electors. Today, however, there is no such moral compass to guide the voter through turbulent and treacherous political waters.
The voter's voice
In the past 15 years, we have had three government changes. The FNM was the last party to have back-to-back wins in 1992 and again in 1997. Since that time, governments have been given single five-year terms before being booted out of office by the voter.
We must therefore ask ourselves: are we becoming a nation of people who will just vote against something without honestly evaluating the pros and cons of what we are voting for?
Bahamians love politics. In fact, given our recent history, the only thing that we seem to enjoy more than talking politics is exercising our right to remove governments from office.
The most important question in the upcoming election is whether Bahamians have arrived at that point of frustration with the present government where they will follow that Bahamian adage "if you don't listen, you will feel", believing that their only option is to remove this government at the next election. Only time will tell.
Conclusion
As we meander along the circuitous corridors of the campaign trail to "Judgment Day", this election campaign, albeit extremely short, will be full of shocking surprises, twists and turns.
Next week, we will review some of the candidates who are offering for election this time, along with some of the races to watch closely.
In the third and final installment of this election series, we will assess the strengths, weaknesses and challenges of the leaders of the three major parties who each propose that they have the best solutions to the problems that beset our society, as well as the smartest strategies for securing our future.
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