Political truths and reconstruction
On Saturday evening, around 60 people filled St. Paul’s Christian Education Centre to discuss how to make Bermuda’s political system more democratic. At the start of the evening, I was somewhat sceptical about the need for such change. By the end, I was more convinced.
The evening began with 15-minute presentations from four speakers: Tom Vesey, David Sullivan, Julian Hall and Denis Pitcher. These were followed by 5-minute commentaries from Graeme Outerbridge and Ben Nunn. Audience members were then invited to contribute thoughts and questions.
Tom Vesey began by arguing that his participation in Bermuda’s democracy in the last eight years was limited to casting a vote for either John Barritt or Dorothy Burch. “And what did we get for electing John Barritt?” he asked, pointing out that in that time Mr. Barritt has not passed any legislation. It wasn’t a criticism of Mr. Barritt, but an indictment of the current system, whereby even an elected representative can have little influence on the way Bermuda is governed.
In a forum that was sometimes long on idealism and short on specifics, Mr. Vesey offered several suggestions to give people more of a say in the running of their country and make the current system less adversarial. These included:
- Eliminate party whips to encourage MPs to openly debate the pros and cons of issues instead of retreating behind party positions.
- Change the seating in the House to avoid having two sides facing off against each other.
- Get rid of the term “Opposition”.
- Have the Government include one or more members of the Opposition in the Cabinet.
- Remove the secrecy surrounding Cabinet meetings.
- Have fixed election dates. Mr. Vesey said that this would also facilitate the use of primaries, which would give people a greater say in their representatives.
- Increase the use of referenda.
- Change the method of constituting the Senate. Having appointed members is anti-democratic.
- Introduce a code of conduct for elected officials.
- Give MPs more to do by having more legislation made by bipartisan committees. This would encourage MPs to work with each other and think about issues more deeply.
David Sullivan suggested that we don’t have a failed system, we have a failed process, although by the end of his talk I still didn’t understand the distinction. He noted that the sustainable development process has spent a great deal of time and money looking at processes, but not at those running them. He observed that while MPs will soon discuss which of them are part-time and which full-time, and how much they should be paid, they have not asked the people what they think. He also wondered why there were no PLP or UBP MPs in the audience.
Julian Hall said that the Westminster system is fine in principle, and has served the UK well. However, he questioned whether it is appropriate for a country of Bermuda’s size. He argued that with only 60,000 people, Bermuda is ideally suited to using referenda on a regular basis, having more government committees, and greater transparency in the Cabinet. Neither party has a monopoly on wisdom, he said. He also warned that lots of young people feel isolated from politics and that “social unrest is right around the corner”.
Denis Pitcher said that independence from the UK under the current political system is unimportant while that system offers the average Bermudian little say in the running of their country. He stressed the value of a British passport to him and said that he couldn’t understand why some Bermudians want to have responsibility for things such as external affairs and the police when the UK is willing to do this on Bermuda’s behalf. (Julian Hall later echoed these sentiments, saying that having an honest broker such as the UK to deal with these things could be a good thing for Bermuda.)
Stuart Hayward remarked that Bermuda is not the only place to be considering whether it is best served by its current political system. He pointed to the UK’s Power Inquiry, a recently completed independent report into the state of the UK’s democracy.
Graeme Outerbridge said that the current political system has marginalised small parties. Select committees have been replaced by the power of the Cabinet. “Education” about independence sounds like state control, not democracy, he said. He spoke of the need to make Bermuda’s political process relevant again and said that the House of Assembly needed to embrace technology instead of resisting it. He reminded the audience that the private sector is the source of innovation, not the public sector, and urged more support for think tanks such as the Foundation for Bermuda Studies (of which he is a founding member).
Ben Nunn alleged that financiers are the ones who control politics, and launched a scathing attack on HSBC and the forces of globalisation. I wasn’t quite sure how this was relevant to the discussion.
Opening things up to the audience, Stuart Hayward asked people to speak without being offensive, listen without being defensive and disagree without being disagreeable.
One audience member asked what we can do to change our political system short of independence. Graeme Outerbridge reminded him that the UK has said that there can be no changes to our constitution without independence. However, Julian Hall suggested that if both parties agreed on systemic change, the UK would be minded to accept it. He also said that not all the changes being discussed would need an amendment to the constitution.
Another attendee asked about the alternatives to the two party system. Tom Vesey suggested a two party system where people just relaxed and let MPs speak their minds. Graeme Outerbridge agreed that withdrawing the whip was the way to go. (But if the whip is withdrawn, what point is there in having political parties at all, I wondered.) Denis Pitcher said that if the parties were delivering there would be no need to get rid of the system at all. Julian Hall said that politics based on ideology is what we should be all about.
At this point, Renee Webb entered the hall. After David Sullivan’s earlier comment, when the audience saw her they began to laugh, then applaud. An expression of puzzled amusement crossed Ms. Webb’s face as she sat down in the seat in front of me.
Michael Marsh stood up to say that the Premier had written a letter to Bermudians For Referendum (BFR) in which he said, “I view your efforts as an excellent example of democracy at work”. Mr. Marsh was clearly both surprised and impressed by this. He went on to say that BFR believe that the constitution should be changed to allow people to start a petition that will automatically lead to a binding referendum on an issue. The aim, he said, is to introduce a little bit of direct democracy into what is currently a representative democracy.
A recurring topic was the unwritten rule of British politics that politicians caught lying or engaging in unethical behaviour must resign at once. Both Julian Hall and Stuart Hayward suggested that such a principle was unworkable in Bermuda because of the risk that it would exhaust the small pool of political talent from which Bermuda has to draw. I wondered how, then, politicians were to be kept honest. Mr. Hayward later suggested to me that giving the people the ability to recall an MP in the middle of their term was one way to do this. Since Bermuda does not seem to have the UK’s “culture of resignation”, this seems like the next best thing. However I’m still uncertain how it mitigates the risk of exhausting the talent pool.
Overall it was an thought-provoking evening and I commend Khalid Wasi for pulling together such an interesting group of speakers.
Archives By Date
Ahhh but Stuart - I will use any opportunity to ride Randy till we hear Rebecca Middleton's case is up and running again and he has replied to the family's letters.
Heck Randy can handle himself with guys like that. Even if the approach is somewhat "Brannonesque" I am sure two years without a response would get most people uppity. You know very well that most people aren't the most reserved and of sound temperment like yourself. Not even me. ;)
Posted by SmokingGun on 13.03.06 at 19:04
Denis,
I admire your spirit, and wish you success.
Posted by stuart J Hayward on 13.03.06 at 18:54
Ditto.
Posted by SmokingGun on 13.03.06 at 19:06
Stuart,
I would like to take a moment to commend you on your excellent moderation of the forum. You are indeed correct about the gentlemens demeanor and you were right to stop it where you did.
I approached him following the meeting as I wanted to encourage him to participate in future events, gain insight into the experiences that brought him out and give him a chance to voice and have his opinions listened to.
Every man should be entitled to a voice.
In terms of Randy Horton, I have nothing upon which to base this mans claims directly against him other then to listen.
I can however relate to his experiences.
Since I returned to the island in November, I tried for 3 months without success to attain an audience with Deputy Premier, the Honourable Dr. Ewart Brown.
Only after I wrote a letter to Dr. Brown and the Premier that I copied both papers and Limey in Bermuda was I offered the opportunity that his door "was always open" and he would be more then happy to meet with me. I do admit I had not written him prior.
Subsequently it has been nearly 2 months since that suggestion. The first arranged meeting I waited 3 weeks for only to have it cancelled the day of with little to no notice. I have arranged another meeting for this thursday and can only assume I will achieve an audience.
From the opposite perspective, I achieved a meeting with Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert almost immediately following writing him a letter.
Our premier, never responded.
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 13.03.06 at 19:25
Okay, I’m sorry this is a bit long and unpolished. But it’s been forming in my head since I sat in that hall Saturday night. I usually wouldn’t drop something like this on this type of forum, but it’s been demanding to be vented. Forgive me for venting and letting it all out on you guys. I bare it to your criticism or ignoring.
The meeting was long on idealism – it was full of castles in the sky and very little practical benefit. Tom Vesey, though not the best speaker oratically was perhaps the best in ideas. Even these are simply wish lists and fail to illustrate how these ‘reforms’ of our parliamentary system could be realized. At the end of the night my conclusion was that it was primarily a talk shop for the politically frustrated middle classes and the disillusioned progressive labourists to blow off a little steam in their criticism of the system. The audience represented, from my perception, the most consciously aware of the population not chauvinistically attached to the main parties.
The main question from the floor to the speakers was the simple question of ‘That’s great, we agree with you about your criticisms of the Westminster system – but how do we go about effecting change?’ The speakers waffled here and waffled there in response to this question until one, perhaps flippantly spoke of revolution. The required changes would be revolutionary changes. In other words, they will not come from above. The current system maintains the existing parties, it maintains the status quo. For all their divisiveness the parliamentary PLP is simply the other side of the coin to the UBP. Should the said reforms be introduced, the very notions of power would be altered. Altered but not changed.
Two things can be deduced from this. 1) Change will not come from above; 2) The very conceptions of power and democracy must be re-evaluated.
Change will not come from above: Historically no fundamental change to the system of government has come about from above. Everything from parliamentary representative democracy, to women’s rights, racial political equality, the destruction of the propertied electoral system and the extension of the franchise to universal suffrage, have not been legislated out of the sheer good will of the politicians but by pressure from below. Mass action, be it in the form an organized political grouping, labour action (the isolated, the general and the mass strike), and naked power – violence (these are all different manifestations of the one), has everywhere and always been the locomotive of history. This meeting, and similar meetings, simply demonstrate a growing consciousness, an awareness that the current system is no longer adequate and that something better could exist. How to achieve this change is dependent on translating this awareness into practical mass action. I assume this was the plan of the night – to foster support for the nebulous ABCs of Khalid Wasi. It should not be limited to that. The PLP leadership is secure in its position primarily because of the demoralization of its grassroots – the most active and politically aware PLPers have left the field to opportunists and bureaucrats. What is needed is a return to the party branches of these members, and the influx of new members. It is incredibly hard to attend meetings, deliberate on weighty issues and forge our destiny after working long hours, stressing about rent and bills, children, etc, but it is the only way to achieve our independence. It is far easier to pay and to obey, to leave the decision making to the ‘leadership’ and obey them blindly, but this is not a recipe for achieving our destiny – rather it is a recipe for sacrificing our fate on the altar of opportunistic self-interest, interested only in power and wealth. The same is true of the BIU, BPSU and so on. This site, these meetings, are great for criticising and dreaming, but without practical action, without putting the shoulder to the wheel and forming mass groups, joining the existing parties, the unions and other civic groups and agitating for the revolutionary change we all know is possible and is better than the current Westminster hypocrisy, nothing will change except an increasing frequency of anarchic outbursts as social pressure is released sporadically. Our Isles of Rest may well truly become the Isles of Unrest. Change will not come from above. All democratic rights currently in existence where not given from above but fought for with human blood and sweat. History will not make an exception for little Bermuda – practical mass action is the only proven instrument for achieving change. Conspiratorial groupings claiming to speak for the masses fail precisely because they either do not enjoy mass support – the conditions are not right- or the masses are not capable of governing themselves as yet and this vacumn passes power to the new ruling class of the conspirators – the history of Blanqui and Lenin/Stalin demonstrate this.
Changing the very conception of power and democracy: Under the current Westminster system us voters get to vote once every four or five years, and must choose the right MP then for we don’t get a right to say for another four or five years. There is no accountability, no right of recall in this system. Due to the very nature of campaigning under this system only those with great wealth behind them (either individual – the rich – or massed – the social democratic model) is capable of contesting. This right away surrenders the ground to the rich or the labour aristocracy of the poor. This labour aristocracy is often interested only in slight reform and benefit from the status quo – they are a product of the pay and obey model of labour organization, representative of a still politically immature mass. Furthermore representation is based on geographic residence and not on labour. Who defines themselves by parish and who by occupation? Is not the very heartbeat of our society based on production? At most a geographic model is useful for local issues, and the parish councils should be rehabilitated for this role as democratically elected and prone to recall bodies. But for the nation we should base it on occupational bottom up democratic councils. Representatives in this bottom up hierarchy must be totally subject to the right of recall to maintain accountability and the democratic will – thus preventing opportunism and corruption.
Under our current system we surrender our freedom to new masters, the MPs. Freedom is not letting leaders think for us, following obediently behind, occasionally telling them off. Freedom, that is true democracy, means participating to the full, thinking, deciding and working things out for oneself, taking responsibility for our society. To change the Westminster system we most first change our conception of being led to one of common forging of our destiny. That was the revolutionary meaning behind Bob Marley’s call to emancipate oneself from mental slavery. The tricky thing is realizing that maximizing ones full individual development is dependent on common mass action and participation in our political society.
Posted by J Starling on 13.03.06 at 21:29
J Starling,
I do appreciate your commentary regarding the forum, though I would like to propose that it's purpose was based upon expressing thoughts and ideas, not as a promotion for Khalid's attempt at forming the ABC party.
None of the speakers at the forum expressed any ties to ABC and it was meant to be a non-partisan discussion.
I have outlined in earlier comments in this thread my reasoning for why I do not want to join neither the UBP or the PLP. I do not see how joining either party would yield any positive result as neither seems willing to pursue the route of true direct democracy. I especially oppose joining the PLP on the basis of "not knowing what I was signing" and their continued refusal to hold a referendum on independence.
This forum in my eyes was meerly a first step. I am uncertain what answers you and others were looking for as it seems many who attend these kinds of events just look for the easy solution. As you suggest, there is no easy solution, it will not come from above, it will come from below.
I certainly would have expressed my desire to reform our political system towards a structure that represents true democracy: direct democracy, which I am in full-support of.
However, noone in either party will listen to the calls of the people until the turnout is larger. For a first attempt, I believe the turnout was quite good. If it can grow with time to reach a point where 500-1000 people appear, then and only then will our government begin to take notice.
Perhaps you are right and it will take violence and civil unrest before our government listens. I for one don't see that as too far off.
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 13.03.06 at 21:49
Just to clarify Denis, I did not advocate civil unrest and violence as the means to acheive revolutionary change. I personally feel we can acheive this without shedding blood through political and labour action. Violence would be counterproductive, serving only to bring on the forces of reaction. If blood is shed it will not be shed by those advocating change but by those resisting change. Like any cornered animal, their defence is often violent. Self-defence, that is, defeding the advocates of change as a result of an attack on them, is acceptable and necessary though. Even then, violence is the last resort. Historically the establishment, resistant to change has not hesitated to bring violence on the advocates of change.
Posted by J Starling on 13.03.06 at 21:57
Rossini
Triggerfish your comments pertain to the entire panel. A bevy of losers, wanna be's...only in Bermuda would we elevate such idle people and their rantings to the level of gospel.
Are you saying this because you don't believe that Bermuda's political system needs to change? Do you not think that any of the suggestions made were worthwhile? If not, why not?
Perhaps if you addressed what was said, instead of attacking those who said it, we'd find it easier to understand where you're coming from.
Posted by Phil on 13.03.06 at 23:05
Graeme Outerbridge emailed me the following clarification about his comments at the meeting:
During the meeting Graeme also suggested that Bermuda should have a select committee of the future, although he didn't go into any detail about the purpose of such a body. In his email, however, Graeme explained it thus:
Posted by Phil on 13.03.06 at 23:15
J Starling,
I apologize, by no means was I attempting to suggest that you advocate violence as the means of achieving change.
Instead I was suggesting that it may truly be sad if the only way we ever see our people be more then complacent about expressing their dissatisfaction is when that dissatisfaction has reached an extreme and incurs in the form of civil unrest.
I am of the hope that this state will never be reached and instead people choose to better involve themselves in any organized event that assists in showcasing the need for change and accountability in our government.
While the forum may not have been ideal in some people's eyes, it was at least a start, as there is little in the form of a peaceful movement and hopefully if it can gain traction now, it will bring change over time rather then the change that is brought through quick and drastic action such as that which is produced through violence.
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 14.03.06 at 15:44
I do not think anyone is advocating any form of violence or civil unrest (oxymoron?) as a means to change. There are some very solid ideas that seem to be floating around that might see the light of day if presented through a simple referendum.
The simple fact that we have such a limited pool of not just talent but people who are even in a position that they can participate in the political process begs the question as to why we need to run with a gimp program in the first place. Let's figure out our strenghts and use them to overcome our weaknesses. For instance, we have a perfectly good program in place with regard to our foreign policy and security, it's called The British Commonwealth. Therefore why spend time on independence as that will burden us a nd put us in a weaker postion.
Maybe Bermuda For Referendum should up the ante of their agenda and push for politcal change across the board for referenda.
Posted by SmokingGun on 14.03.06 at 16:27
SmokingGun,
Thats just it, why in the hell are we wasting so much time and energy on independence when there are bigger fish to fry?
I sat down today with quite a prominant person in IB. Do you know what he told me? That most Bermudian youth simply can't make it in international business because they simply don't know the basics of how to communicate on a professional level. Regardless of how intelligent and smart they are, if they cannot articulate their thoughts and ideas in a reasonable manner they have no hope.
The very sad truth is that he is right.
IB is the heart and soul of our economy and we are failing miserably at educating our people on the basics to survive in it. There is no other industry aside from government, failing tourism and services that support the IB community. IB is our here and now as well as our future.
It's not just our government thats at fault, it's our whole system. Our government is at fault for refusing to change that system and both the PLP and UBP are to blame for it. There is a great deal that could be solved simply if they were presented through referendum. Simply if our people were held just a little bit more accountable and involved a bit more.
The problem is, any time the BFR group mentions anything outside of the independence referendum, people suggest they've overstepped their bounds.
If I could suggest anything, I'd say if you want to see it happen then go to a BFR meeting yourself and encourage the position.
They're open to anyone after all.
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 14.03.06 at 19:13
"Simply if our people were held just a little bit more accountable and involved a bit more."
Denis I would say if our people were held in higher standing of respect and involved a lot more.
One of the great burdens of leadership is not just knowing where to aim but also knowing when to pull the trigger. Too often people get into trouble because they lose sight of the target when trying to figure out how to pull the trigger.
Trust me, if you have a whole army helping you keep focused you'll hit your targets.
Posted by SmokingGun on 14.03.06 at 19:41
I would also support campaign finance reporting. This is one of Bermuda's favorite whispered slanders on both sides: "oh you know they were funded by so and so". So let's be honest.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 14.03.06 at 21:35
In reading reports from the forum over the weekend there was a call for the electorate to have the option of recalling a government. A better option, in my view, is that the electorate should be able to recall specific non-productive Members of Parliament.
Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 16.03.06 at 12:34
Guilden,
I whole heartedly agree. Though I believe we should have both the ability to recall specific non-productive Members of Parliament as well
as the whole leadership.
The sheer ability to do this will accomplish one simple thing... It will give our overall leadership the fear that they can get fired... that fear will drive them to be accountable and do a good job.
Right now, we guarantee them 5 years to do whatever they want. It just doesn't work.
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 16.03.06 at 12:35
Guilden - I would tend to agree on the recall issue but not just un-productive MPs. Some might be productive but they are also feathering their own bed with their productivity - recall them as well.
Posted by SmokingGun on 16.03.06 at 12:44
I agree with Guilden. Giving us, the people of Bermuda, the power to fire someone that's not doing their job will almost certainly give some motivation to... well... do their frickin' job!
Smokes,
I dig you, but... productivity and honesty might be a little too much to ask for at this juncture! *grin*
These are politicians we're talking about here.
I'd settle for a productive crook who's doing their job well and skimming a little for themselves, y'know?
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 16.03.06 at 13:00
Uncle E - I wont settle for anything less than what I hold myself to. The only crook that does their job well is the one that hasn't been caught.
But in this day and age I think if you want to try it you had just better be prepared for the resulting humiliation and destruction that comes with the territory.
Posted by SmokingGun on 16.03.06 at 13:26
I'm running a survey to assess the general feeling about some of the ideas raised in the forum. You can take it here.
Posted by Phil on 17.03.06 at 14:07
Did anyone catch J Starling's letter to the editor in todays (Saturday 18th March) RG?
Gotta hand it to the guy, it was a very good letter, well written and straight to the point. I disagree with his politics for the most part, but I sure have an increased respect for him after reading that letter.
Posted by ace on 18.03.06 at 18:49