To understand Bermuda, you must know its history

Last weekend the Titanic memorial cruise ship MS Balmoral floated above the wreckage of the Titanic precisely 100 years after this magnificent vessel sank, killing 1,514 people in one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters ever.  Examination of what happened to the Titanic and the lives of the ill-fated passengers, the passage of Titanic tales into popular discourse all continue as the legacy of this tragedy lives on. It lives on because history matters.

In our own global niche that is Bermuda too many of us seem conflicted about how to embrace our history. While we celebrate old Bermuda homes and speak with pride about our history of sailing vessels, for example, many of us turn mute when our long quest for social and political reform is discussed. The society we live in today is a direct consequence of those struggles yet there are those who seek to sever any and all links with the past. 

Understanding our social and political history is critical for anyone who truly wants to understand modern Bermuda; without it, you will have no effective reference point. It is this lack of a reference point that unfortunately permeates our youth in particular but is not unknown among their parents. To have a perspective on our past is a qualitatively different matter than knowing the facts of events: It is useful to know that Sir George Somers shipwrecked on Bermuda and the island was subsequently colonized. But we see a bigger picture when we understand that joint-stock companies (like the Bermuda Company) were used by the English state to facilitate colonial expansion in the 17^th century.  

History helps us understand themes that pervade our current discussions. Racial consciousness was inserted into our politics with the introduction of slavery, sustained during segregation and aligned with wealth and privilege during the heyday of the white oligarchy and white privilege. Who among us believes this has no relevance today?

History helps us to understand that immigration policy has always had a political dimension. From the 1840s Bill to encourage English immigration to Bermuda; to the successful  1920s campaign by Governor Willcocks to recruit English police officers to replace the mostly black police force; to the 1960s campaign by government to encourage Bermudian emigration to the United States, while simultaneously bringing the largest influx of British nationals ever to our island. In recent decades, immigration policy has been shaped by a freeze of acquiring Bermuda status by grant, the creation of the permanent residency status and term limits. 

And, history helps us to understand that the most important progress for people in Bermuda has been made outside of the formal political process. Parliament and Britain sat by and did nothing to end racial segregation and promote democracy. For progress on this front we have to thank the Progressive Group and the Committee for Universal Adult Suffrage. The Bermuda Workers Association and the Bermuda Industrial Union fought for and won important rights for worker—not parliament. These lesson should demonstrate the real power vested in people; something which is lacking today, in part I believe, because we are disconnected from our past. 

Ironically, many of us will enthusiastically celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee this year. As graceful and as charming as Queen Elizabeth is, it is worth noting that our head of state made no effort to bring Bermuda in line with 20^th century sensibilities about freedom and democracy when we needed it most. This too is part of our history.

No one truly believes history is unimportant: the sports enthusiast will go into historical detail on his team’s performance, the fashionista can tell you which styles herald back to a bygone era, and the business tycoon reflects on the seeds of his success. Typically, those who argue against reverting to history to gain insight about modern Bermuda want to shape an argument rooted in some distortion. This distortion will provide no insight. 

The traits of good leadership

In a world bereft of great leaders we suffer collectively from a failure to resolve important issues and make the kinds of progress to improve people’s lives. In the political realm, there are certain traits reflected in great leaders but these traits will vary based on the political terrain one must navigate.  The most challenging times cry out for great leaders who move people and move society forward. The United States had Franklin Roosevelt and Dr Martin Luther King. We had Dr E f Gordon. Latin America had Simon Bolivar. And Africa had Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta. While we have few great leaders today we can identify those characteristics in them that may prove instructive for those to come.

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher demonstrated tremendous leadership skills; and I have no trouble asserting this even while disagreeing with her position on most issues. Mrs Thatcher conveyed an image of the kind of society she wanted to create—“putting Great back into Britain”—and set about doing so with steely determination. There was never any doubt about what her objective was and she rallied her parliamentary members to this cause. Unfortunately, too many leaders today lack the conviction to hold true to their principles and work to win over public support; rather, they shift and shuffle based on the latest opinion polls. Thatcher would have none of this.

If any leader embodies selfless and principled determination to improve the lives of her people it is Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her National League for Democracy won 80% of the seats in the 1990 elections but was never able to hold power as the military held control; Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest for more than 20 years and she became a beacon of hope and progress for her people through her stoic defiance. Rather than leave her country for a life of comfort she knew that her presence would keep the global spotlight on the military dictatorship in Burma and help push forward progress that we are seeing today. 

American President Barack Obama is that rare politician who captivated the hopes and aspirations of people worldwide. At a time of disquiet and sober reflection about tomorrow Mr Obama has been able to inspire millions that, yes, we can create a better place. Americans will have their own divisive battle on the merits of Obama’s leadership as they lead up to November; and the sub-text of a large part of this battle will involve issues Americans have yet to resolve.  For the rest of the world, where America remains the dominant global force, we look to President Obama as a sincere advocate for positive change to better the lives of ordinary people. 

The best leaders inspire, they create hope and they improve people’s lives. We need better leadership in the world today since the issues confronting us will never be resolved by competing commercial interests or ossified bureaucrats; the challenges, moreover, have gotten deeper because of self-interest. The issues will never be resolved if our leaders lack the courage to act decisively and set a vision for our future.  We need clear and decisive action.

Five traits to look for in a politician

As our political parties continue to roll out candidates the public have an opportunity to make a preliminary assessment of these men and women. Each will have their own idiosyncrasies and, for those winning the confidence of a majority of voters in their constituency, bring to the House of Assembly unique and differing voices. These differences notwithstanding there are five common traits which, if possessed by each candidate, would make for better debate and better decisions.

Perhaps the single most important trait any member of parliament should have is the capacity to think critically. Whether that member serves in Cabinet, the backbench or the opposition bench she is obliged to critically examine every piece of legislation brought before her and should have the ability to articulate its essence.  Without a critical mass of critical thinkers the public interest cannot be adequately served.

Secondly, parliamentarians should be diligent in their representation of their constituents’ interests. Too often the complaint is made that either “my vote was taken for granted and no one came to see me” or that the MP disappeared after the election. The communication needs to be sustained throughout the period between elections. More importantly, though, the positions taken by MPs should be mindful of the views held by constituents. This does not mean the parliamentarian is a delegate sent from a constituency, he remains a representative; he is required to liaise with his constituency when considering potentially controversial policies. It may be that an MP will support a position contrary to that of his constituents; he needs to be prepared to fully explain how the national interest, as he sees it, is better served by his own position.

A third important trait desirable in a politician is that she be a team player. A parliamentary group is a collective and not a group of individuals; they have come together, presumably, because they share a common outlook. Differences over policy are meant to be debated in caucus and a common position arrived at. There is no issue for a politician if he or she is occasionally in a minority position; if, however, this is a regular occurrence it will certainly raise questions about that person continuing to serve in that party. 

Leadership skills are a fourth trait. As one of the 36 elected members of the legislature they are all de facto leaders; but in addition to this, any member can be called upon to serve in Cabinet, shadow  cabinet, chair a committee or represent Bermuda’s interests internationally.  In countries with much larger parliaments, representatives can effectively win office and then disappear, say little if anything and then pop up when elections are imminent.  Because of our size we have a limited pool to draw from and so as a consequence, there are demands on most MPs to serve in some other leadership role.

Finally, a publicly defensible code of ethics is a critical trait for all politicians. Serving in Parliament is meant to represent a sacred trust between the voter and the politician. We can all have a robust debate about what this means but there can be no doubt such a code would reject abusing political power for private gain. Anyone guilty of such abuse is simply not suitable for public office.

Voters will soon consider at least 72 men and women as their representative in our House of Assembly. It may prove helpful if these traits in candidates are assessed alongside their political party affiliation.

Irrational negativity is harming us

A cloud of irrational negativity has descended upon our shores.  While this may well be a reaction to many of the challenges Bermuda has faced over the past few years, it makes for more strained public discourse and actually weakens our ability to work collectively to address our more pressing problems. A key characteristic of this irrational negativity is the development of an expansive hyperbolic argument from information which may either be faulty, incomplete, out of context or distorted. Under this scenario accuracy in information in pushed away in favour of outrage and a predilection toward doom and gloom. 

My thinking on this was pricked last week when a colleague—who has done so much to promote Bermuda’s profile internationally—said she has never seen so much negativity in Bermuda: in politics, the workplace, social media, community organisations. 

Two examples bring into relief this irrational negativity. When Premier Cox introduced Mr Scott Simmons as a PLP candidate she pointed out that as press attaché he worked in the White House. A few friends immediately deemed Premier Cox arrogant for placing the Cabinet Building on par with the White House in Washington.  In fact, the building adjacent to the Cabinet Building was named the White House in 1839 when it was built; and there is a plaque on the wall to prove it.  

Last week there were media reports of a Caribbean Conference next week in Cayman, where Premier Cox, Dr Ewart Brown and myself are all scheduled to present papers. Each of us was invited separately: Premier Cox, no doubt as the leader of the largest and most constitutionally advanced UK colony; Dr Brown because of his strong ties;  and myself since I have been working on these issues for more than twenty years and am usually invited to such conferences. For some reason this sparked more than 300 comments on the Bernews website most of which were not simply negative, they expressed outrage.  Claims that this was a government junket, Dr Brown should not be part of a Bermuda contingent, we have more important things to focus on, etc.  These hyperbolic comments were all misplaced: Dr Brown and I are not part of any government delegation and we are certainly paying our own way. These facts were never brought out and the hysteria over an academic conference most people would find exceedingly dry , while initially humourous, reflects a deep seated negativity that needs very little by way of information to gain traction. 

Some of this negativity is fuelled by politically partisan activists but I suspect it is in the main a product of the discontent so many feel today. The challenge for the country is that we weaken our ability to have civic engagement on critical issues if the discourse is wrapped in uncompromising rhetoric. When we dispense with this, then we can make progress.

We have a great opportunity to do this as we consider the further development of our fishing industry. Government has indicated its intention of negotiating with the Japanese fishing industry to issue licenses: a petition has been launched calling on a ban of any long line fishing. With these two polarizing views we have an opportunity to explore the viability of a sustainable and environmentally sound model that could well satisfy both objectives. 

In the short term, this irrational negativity is not likely to diminish; we may have to wait until after the election.  But we must move beyond it if we want to build a stronger Bermuda.

Austerity vs stimulus

This Friday parliamentarians will hold the annual economic debate against the backdrop of a sustained global recession and two competing views about how to get out of it. The debate will be particularly robust and acerbic given the election cycle we are in but we should be mindful not to confuse hyperbole with careful, fact-based analysis.  

Let us call the first view the austerity measures approach. This argument is based on the view that governments should always balance budgets; borrowing should be kept to the bare minimum; and that when recession hits it is time for more cost saving measures. This is the general approach embraced by conservatives and is best exemplified in the US by Republicans. Some Republicans have even proposed a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. The OBA is closest to this position and there is no doubt much of their commentary will be shaped by this disposition.

One of the consequences stemming from this approach is higher unemployment (in the short term, for sure) and less government support for those people most severely affected by the economic crisis.  A look over at Greece will allow one to readily see the particularly devastating consequences of EU imposed austerity measures.  

The second view we will call growth through stimulus. Essentially this argument is rooted in the belief that we can get out of the recession by injecting money into the economy through a variety of government initiatives and that, while increasing debt, it will help businesses grow. The Obama administration adopted the Cash for Clunkers programme with this in mind and the Bank of England pumped £325 billion into the British economy to stimulate business growth.  This PLP is closest to this approach, having set in place a number of tax concessions to help local businesses.

An important aspect of this recession-busting strategy is that a high premium is placed on job retention: further job losses simply place a greater burden on the state since it will lead to an inevitable increase in benefit claims. Responsible governments cannot allow the weak and the vulnerable to go without food and shelter.

Both views have merit, should not simply be dismissed  and require careful reflection. It may well be that an ideal approach combines elements of each.

How Bermuda got into a recession in the first place will also be hotly debated. There can be no doubt the global recession has been the primary determinant of our current economic circumstances but you will certainly hear on Friday that this government is largely responsible. It takes an incredible leap in logic to view the damage to countries in every corner of the world caused by the financial meltdown and then posit a theory of Bermuda exceptionality. The redevelopment of Sonesta Beach and Coral Beach/Horizons were stopped dead in their tracks with the dramatic collapse of investment giant Lehman Brothers, the company providing the financing. Bermuda lost hundreds of millions of dollars and 100s of jobs and this had nothing to do with domestic policies. This is one clear and obvious consequence of the global recession.

Bermuda has been severely impacted by the global recession and government is attempting to stimulate the economy, protect jobs and provide business incentives. A government which puts people as it first priority will not seek to run the country as one would do a business; governments do not operate on a for-profit basis. There is certainly more that government can do to stimulate growth and make the country a more attractive place to invest; we need to focus on getting the appropriate structures and policies in place to achieve this goal. Getting this right can help position us to recover quickly as the recession winnows away.

How the media shape public opinion

While attending a plenary session at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nairobi 18 months ago, I listened to a number of politicians from many countries speak to the problematic relationship they have with the media. Speaker after speaker challenged reporters to do their job differently and, effectively, declared themselves at war with those who produce the news. It is a battle they cannot win. 

One essential role of the news media in a democracy is to report on government policy, political parties and the decisions of politicians. It is not their responsibility to be an outlet for press releases. In this role, however, the news media do a great deal to shape the news and the public’s focus on issues. 

First, the media set the parameters for public discourse by the content they deliver. The stories published or aired help shape what the public think is important. During any given day there may be literally scores of stories that could make the news but only a few are chosen. An editor or producer somewhere makes a decision about what is newsworthy. Further, the placement of stories front page, page five, lead or last story equally sends a message about perceived importance. And these stories will form the basis of talk show, blog and water cooler discussions tomorrow. 

Related to this aspect of the news media is the myth that facts speak for themselves. They never have. A reporter can write a purely fact driven story yet leave out pertinent facts that would lead the reader to another conclusion. 

The power of the visual image can never be ignored. Again, editors and producers have to make decisions about the imagery they wish to convey on their front page or lead television story. Each image is carefully selected and in so doing is sending you a message, perhaps even more powerful than the written word.

Secondly, the news content is shaped by the worldview of editors and producers their ideological orientation. It is widely accepted that the news media in countries we are familiar with the UK, the US, Canada have clear positions along the ideological spectrum, and it is equally so here in Bermuda. 

Two important aspects of the news media on our Island merit attention since they too shape our views of politics. First, almost all of the news is event driven with very little investigative journalism. While this may well be a function of strained resources it means the public rarely get access to an in-depth understanding of critical issues: crime, the economy, poverty, for example. One result is a failure to see a bigger picture or obtain an enhanced understanding of the issues. 

The second relevant aspect is that the media here have an unwritten code whereby they do not report on the private lives of public figures. Again, in those countries we are most familiar with, what you do in your private life is deemed by the media to be absolutely relevant to your ability to serve the public interest. In fact, as we know, it can derail presidential ambitions. That the media eschew reporting along these lines might be seen as a concession to the politics of a small society but it does raise legitimate questions about their role as it relates to the news. 

The media report the news as much as they shape it. What is excluded can at times be more important than the actual content of a newspaper or television broadcast. My view is that the public interest is better served when we assess news actively and critically and are not merely passive recipients.