Protect Freedom of Speech

We are now immersed in an intense debate surrounding free speech issues. Social media, comment pages on electronic news sites and talk radio have created a wide arena for public debate, banter and a great deal of mudslinging. While many of these comments can best be described with a depressing number of negative adjectives — sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. — they share common ground in that this freedom to express oneself is now taken for granted. It has not always been so.

Free speech in Bermuda has only really developed over the past ten years; twenty years ago our Island was constrained by a culture of intimidation and backroom tactics exerted by the power elite to stifle dissenting opinions. So much so was this the case that a Royal Commissioner Justice Stephen Tumim in 1992 referred to a “fear of speaking out” as a fundamental challenge for Bermuda. 

One personal story illustrates the nature of the political terrain 20 years ago. In 1993 I produced and hosted a weekly television show called Behind the Headlines, where I interviewed prominent personalities on key issues. When I sought to interview the Minister of Finance and the Shadow Minister, the Minister declined, leaving me to interview only the Shadow Minister. After this interview the Broadcasting Commission labelled my show a political broadcast and sought to impose significant restraints. When I appeared before the commission, chaired by Louise Jackson, and explained the show was of a “political nature” but not a “political broadcast” as outlined in the relevant legislation, the commission told me I did not understand the law. One member, John Plowman, asked me, “What is your real agenda?” With two directly opposed views the show remained off the air. Immediately after the 1993 general election the commission wrote to me indicating they now accept my position the programme was indeed of a “political nature”, not a “political broadcast” and that I was free to resume my broadcast. My conclusion was the obvious one: the politically appointed commission members did not want open discussion on political issues in the run up to an election.

Such tactics would never be tolerated today and we have evolved to a place where the public across the political spectrum takes for granted the centrality of free speech in our discourse. But with free speech comes responsibility; and we are unfortunately inundated with a great deal of irresponsibility today. Some of this irresponsibility causes embarrassment to individuals and poses challenges for political parties, although the latter are fair game. Amidst calls for restraint there is the inevitable call for the state to be more assertive in exercising control over what people say. Any move in this direction would be unwise and would require challenge — we cannot go back 20 years. The reality is that free and democratic societies — and we aspire to that — must protect this right to free speech.

One way to shift the tenor of our public discourse is to lead by the example you wish to set. If you think anonymous writers are anathema to sincere debate, ignore them. If you conclude that talk show caller is making merely personal attacks and not dealing with issues, ignore them. And if you determine the person challenging your position never seeks to actually engage you in debate but merely vents, then perhaps they should be ignored as well.

Free speech is a cornerstone of a strong democracy. It needs to be both cherished and respected. When we respect this right perhaps more of us will exercise it responsibly.

Lessons from the Olympics

There is much we can learn from the recently concluded 2012 Olympics. These games were impressive on many fronts — from the opening ceremony, to the daily and perfectly executed competitions to the behind the scenes efficient management — and London, indeed Britain, has a great deal to be proud of. The spirit of the Olympics extends well beyond the competition among nations for gold and it makes sense to reflect on what lessons can be discerned.

An obvious lesson is that talent is the significant relevant factor, not privilege. Too often in other areas of life we reward people either because of a privileged background or some connection that gives them a head start over others. Those who try to cheat the Olympic system are usually found out and they lose out altogether. The rigour with which the International Olympic Committee enforces the focus on talent and a level playing field sends the right message to those talented athletes from small and smaller countries that through hard work their raw talent and ability can translate into success — witness Kirani James from Grenada.

It is important to note that while there is a focus on winning medals, even those who do not win medals can still showcase their talent and growth. Our own Roy Allen Burch set a new Bermuda record, while just missing out on making the finals. Both he and our national swim coach, Ben Smith, should be applauded for this. Success can come in a multitude of forms. 

With the Olympics we see the emergence of national pride that at times may be euphoric but never jingoist. It often has a unifying effect on a country as citizens suspend the daily battles with real and imagined enemies and thrust their support behind their athletes, with momentum gaining as one advances to the next round and the medals are won. There is much to be said about events that can bring a country together, where its citizens come to appreciate that at times the pursuit of the national interest minimises other differences that exist. 

An enduring characteristic of the Olympic spirit is a clearly demonstrated respect for people of all nations and a policy of zero tolerance for those racists and bigots who would tarnish this image through their actions. Their administration of justice in this arena was clear, swift and definitive. A consequence of this is that all athletes and their representatives are more likely to have high confidence levels that there will be minimal factors at play to take their focus away from the games themselves. 

Of particular note this year, the Olympics demonstrated that they can adjust their policies and rules given a changed set of realities. Having respect for all religions meant there had to be found a way to accommodate Muslim women who wanted to compete and continue to practice their faith. This was accomplished with little fanfare yet set an important precedent which no doubt will evolve further in 2016. The IOC made the sensible decision to allow Oscar ‘Blade Runner’ Pistorius to compete and, again, set an important precedent for the admission of competitors with prosthetic limbs.

Finally, the infrastructure built for the Olympics provided the backdrop for these impressive Olympics. It is true that there were significant cost over runs — a report from the Said Business School at Oxford University puts it at £8.4 billion, double the original estimate of £4.2 billion — but there is little doubt the tremendous investment into economically depressed areas of London will reap long rewards for the people living there.

The spirit of the Olympics has now been passed on to Rio de Janeiro; the legacy of London is both instructive and encouraging.

Disagree, but keep talking

Let me first thank Kevin Comeau for his response in the Tuesday edition of this newspaper to my earlier comments. This is precisely the sort of engaged debate we should be having around critical issues rather than the diatribes passing for discussion and the exchanges burdened by the non-sequitur. I therefore accept his invitation to respond.

Mr Comeau begins by asserting that the undercurrent of my argument is that he is “politically motivated”. Untrue. His comments are undoubtedly political insofar as he wants to see important progress in Bermuda on the issue of race but I have no idea of Kevin’s political proclivities nor is it germane to our debate. Nothing in my comments can support his contention in this regard.

It is true that I encouraged Mr Comeau to take his clear passion for addressing the race issue beyond the private domain to the public arena; as a matter of practice, though, I do not disclose the contents of my private discussion with private figures along with their identities to the public, unless explicitly authorised to do so. Further, I hold the view that Kevin is serious in his intent to improve Bermuda’s racial landscape — I simply disagree with much of his analysis and prescription.

The intellectual flaw in the Comeau analysis is the simplistic belief in a dual construct to explain the totality of black advocacy: “black authenticity” vs “morality based” constructs. 

The two fundamental problems are: (1) these constructs are imported from the US onto a completely different socio-economic and political terrain and (2) it examines black people as one dimensional characters. But we are also male, female, young, old, rich and poor. Reducing the analysis to race marginalises the importance of class and therefore clouds the reality of real political struggles. I document this in my book, “Bermuda and the Struggle for Reform”. As a consequence, I reject the labelling of me by Kevin as a “racial equity advocate.” My activism is more complex and more expansive than this. 

There are many who want to believe corruption is rampant in this Government. Mr Comeau says there is “strong circumstantial evidence.” He bases the entirety of his argument on cost overruns on capital projects making inferences about secret deals and questionable conduct by officials. Overruns on capital projects are not unique to this Government nor is it unique to Bermuda. A few months ago I had a long discussion with an individual who was a central figure in the expansion of the airport under the UBP. He explained credibly how the initial budget of $9 million ended up costing taxpayers $27 million. 

In general, though, Mr Comeau is right when he raises the alarm bells about overruns, while I believe he is wrong as to the reasons. A report published by the UK based Taxpayers’ Alliance (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bgpob.pdf) shows that the average net cost overrun on capital projects in the UK is 38 percent. The larger projects tend to have the greatest cost overrun. The US conservative think tank the Cato Institute argues that these findings match US findings. When explaining this, the Cato Institute opines “the inefficiencies in government stem from deep, structural factors, not the skills of the particular politicians or administrators in office.” This is consistent with my publicly expressed position that governments should not be managing large capital projects.

I think Mr Comeau may have been unintentional in blaming black people for the problems of race today but there is no doubt this is precisely what he is doing. His argument may be logical — the black authenticity construct leads to a hostile environment for whites — but it has no applicability in Bermuda. It is a false construct. 

The entirety of his comments refers to what black people should be doing to create the terrain for white participation. Putting party politics aside, since that is shaped by class as much as it is by race, there is the realm of civil society which plays a pivotal role in shaping consciousness. The sad reality is that whites have not and do not generally participate in historically black institutions and events while blacks have done the reverse, at times under great duress. The recent brouhaha over the lack of white people attending the Carifta Games is one manifestation of this sentiment.

Many of us walk down the path in search of ways and strategies to create a more harmonious, stronger and united Bermuda. We see the proverbial Promised Land. Kevin Comeau and I seek the same objective even when we disagree about how to explain our current situation and the way forward. But dialogue such as this is a necessary precondition for any progressive steps forward.

Cricket, Cup Match and life

Whenever decision day draws near each year, both sides roll out their team and there is an unrelenting fight to see who will emerge victorious. The Island will clearly be divided, we will be saturated with a litany of colorful commentary- both positive and negative - and there will be a great deal of handwringing as the numbers come in. The people, however, will have to content themselves as passionate observers from the sidelines. This, after all, is Cup Match.

Born out of Emancipation celebratory activities, Cup Match, along with the numerous related activities, has now established itself as our most popular, most vibrant, most colourful cultural activity of the year. Almost all of us are engaged in something over this, for all intents and purposes, four-day holiday. The cricket match in Somerset, though, is the hub around which all else revolved.

In his brilliant book, “Beyond a Boundary”, the Trinidadian intellectual CLR James explored the relationship between cricket and the wider society; an analysis that still resonates today. Both Somerset and St George’s ensured team discipline and presented a united front, even if there were cracks in the armour. The strategies adopted to achieve a win were critical and there no doubt there will be many commentators critically assessing Somerset’s strong win. Team endurance is always a critical factor as they have to contend with the often oppressive conditions on the ground; not unlike the challenges facing other teams seeking a win.

As much as the team has to work together there is room for individual excellence: one or two players through their exceptional talents can help carry the day for their team: witness the superb performances of Greg Maybury and Kamau Leverock this year.

Team captains are the leaders, chief strategists and the ones tasked with adjusting the play according to events on the field. A captain without courage, unable to excite and mobilise his team or paralysed by over-analysis will not likely make it back next year in that same position. Merely aspiring to be team captain is not a sufficient qualification - the responsibilities are too great and the prize too valuable. Competence, courage and conviction are great qualities to begin with. 

The match was surrounded by highly opinionated spectators, who critically assessed each stroke, each play and the performance of each player. As is to be expected. Unlike other arenas where teams contest for victory, the partisan nature of Cup Match is such that loyalty reigns supreme - no switching of allegiances here. These allegiances run deep and have even been known to divide families, at least during the duration of the game.

Anyone having grown up in Bermuda will know that it is difficult to remain neutral when casting an opinion about the outcome of the match. The platitudes ending with, “and may the best team win” ring hollow with me and many others. Why? Because we know which is the better team, we know the talent of their players and we believe their strategy will carry them to victory. For many of us this is sufficient reason to stay to the wicket.

Comeau speeches miss the point

Kevin Comeau’s speech this week before Rotary was designed to be both provocative and the subject of sustained debate. I am not sure he wants to be helpful. Race remains the prism through which many of our social, economic and political issues are refracted and we seem set to have to endure this for the immediate future.

Understanding how our racially structured society came about, how it is being addressed today and how to remedy the damage caused by racism is as complex as it is necessary. Unfortunately, Mr Comeau’s analysis falters on both epistemological and factual grounds.

To begin with, there is the application of an American theoretical construct — the “black authenticity” construct — which is more fantasy than reality in modern Bermuda. That construct, as applied to the Progressive Labour Party, was phased out by former leader Frederick Wade during his tenure (1985-1996) and in so doing played a critical role in the PLP’s 1998 electoral victory.

The black authenticity model was critical for the development of black pride against a backdrop of white supremacy and colonial rule but it was always an impediment to electoral victory for the PLP since middle class blacks shied away from this ideology. There are certainly people today who advocate this construct but that sentiment is not reflected in the approach taken by the PLP. 

A more serious challenge with the Comeau analysis is that he places the blame for the continuance of racism on black people — the very victims of white supremacy and institutionalised racism. For him, the quest for racial justice will secure legitimacy when white people are comfortable enough to sit down and work with, presumably, black people to work through the challenges of race.

Seriously? The social history over the past 40 years is a history of black people integrating every segregated white institution they could: schools, clubs, social organisations, political parties, etc. On the other hand, whites generally, have not moved to join historically black institutions, which were always open to all races. There was no “black authenticity” construct at play here that denied white people the opportunity to join such organisations and there is none in play today.

Mr Comeau loses credibility when he permeates his speech with the theme that this government is corrupt. Having focused the entirety of his comments on what black people need to do, this corruption undercurrent is without question a bold statement that this black government is corrupt.

In making about as serious a charge as one could make about any government, does he present a shred of evidence? No. Yet his accusations stand. Governor (Sir Richard) Gozney was asked directly if he had seen any evidence of government corruption at the executive level and his answer was an unqualified “no”. Perhaps he too was on the take.

The assertion that black people vote in solidarity for the PLP is obviously false, as even a cursory look of election results since 1968 show a significant percentage of black voters have voted for parties other than the PLP. But if the view that blacks vote solidly for the PLP, even if false, so concerns Mr Comeau, why does it not equally concern him that whites vote solidly for one party? And by an even larger margin.

Perhaps more important than a government’s electoral base are the policies and legislation it puts in place. Any careful examination of successive PLP actions in this area will show policies and legislation that are “race neutral” in both design and implementation. There is undoubtedly a class bias as a party focusing on working people should act accordingly. 

We need less hyperbole, less name calling and more constructive contributions if we are to realise the vision articulated by Emperor Haile Selassie and popularised by Bob Marley — the day when “the colour of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes”. Regrettably, this intervention by Mr Comeau sets that day further back.

Social media's pros and cons

A large part of the unofficial election campaign is being conducted through social media. Talk radio, Facebook, online news sites and blogs, for example, are now bastions of extended commentary and no doubt an important component of a more participatory democracy in the 21st century. There are some challenges with social media, however, that do impact on the nature and extent of our debates. And it is worth reflecting on these, if only to better appreciate some of the limits these media run up against. 

The first and most obvious limitation is that social media have become the vessel of such highly polarised ‘debate’ that the middle is oftentimes left out. The champions on either side convey their message with tunnel-like and unrelenting enthusiasm — and they take no prisoners. The middle is effectively silenced since their entry onto the political battlefield is viewed sceptically and any comment made is assessed, in the first instance, to detect which side they are on. Claims they are not party affiliated are more likely than not to fall on deaf or unsympathetic ears. 

A second limitation is that social media is truly the domain where fact and fiction merge. A largely unregulated environment where almost anyone can say almost anything the truth often falls victim to someone’s own political agenda. Saying something often and saying it passionately does not make it accurate and we have simply seen numerous examples of this over the years. With social media the misrepresentations of fact multiplies easily and quickly. It would be an interesting exercise to document weekly the fiction represented as fact. 

With social media, people for some reason seem to have a greater penchant for descending into the personal attack — with a plethora of irrelevant, racist, misogynist, xenophobic utterances. Some are protected under the blanket of anonymity and thus feel empowered to be as vile and as obnoxious as possible. They are cowards who deserved to be ignored; unfortunately, some of us take the bait. On this front I heed the advice of my paternal grandfather, W G Brown, who during my teen years, repeatedly and passionately told me and my siblings — in words beyond the PG rating of this medium — not to give such comments value. 

Social media also lends itself to easy manipulation by a coordinated force. With anonymity, false names and a bit of work one can greatly influence or shape any debate. Further, it seems quite clear that there are online and talk radio campaigns with particular political thrusts attempting to be presented as the collective will of a politically engaged public. Not so. A consequence of all this is a greater level of scepticism and for some, disengagement from the political process altogether.

One outcome of these four limits of social media is that we engage less in substantive debates about what really matters: the policies, programmes and visions of the respective political parties. What matters is what the current government has done, is doing and promises to do. What matters is what the opposition parties critiques of government are and what they intend to do if elected government. 

Social media are cheap to use, easy to access and have truly democratised the participatory process. When we can better shape this medium to become a more powerful vehicle for debate, thoughtful reflection and a focus on the political issues that matter to the real experiences to voters and all other residents then we will have made some real progress.

Civil servants and public policy

Anyone familiar with the classic British television series, the satirical “Yes, Minister” will know that at its core the show was about the efforts by a government Minister to lead and his battles with often recalcitrant civil servants. This fictional series was not too far from the truth. Where politicians lead and civil servants are meant to implement policy, the process is rarely smooth and without its own internal challenges.

One reason why the link between policy setting and implementation may not go smoothly is because of disagreement with the policy decision among civil servants. In almost all instances, civil servants dutifully carry out their responsibilities and implement policy directives. But not always. I recall an instance a number of years ago when a minister made a decision that was clearly contrary to the view of a particular civil servant who had responsibility to act on it. The civil servant found a multitude of reasons to explain his delay in implementation and after three months still no action had been taken. It was only when the civil servant was subjected to an intensely colourful, semi-public dressing down that he set about acting on the decision — immediately.

Policy implementation may also be delayed or set askew because of internal procedural requirements. The pace envisioned by Ministers for putting policy in place may simply not be possible given that civil servants have the responsibility to ensure that all necessary details are properly addressed. There is even likely to be a level of tension at times when a Minister wants a decision acted on immediately, yet is constrained by the need for civil servants to liaise with all appropriate parties and secure any necessary permissions. Because civil servants operate in neither an explicitly political environment nor in the private sector their sensibilities and modus operandi will necessarily be quite different and not always readily understood. The logic of the civil service is to ensure that decisions are implemented correctly, without a primary reference to the political context.

A third challenge to the smooth alignment between policy and implementation is one driven by purely internal dynamics. Like any large organisation, there is always internal politics — the small “p” sort — at play. The jockeying for power, personality conflicts and the abuses that at times ensue all conspire, even if inadvertently, to challenge the policy implementation process. This sort of political battle takes a toll on morale, sustained collaborative work and, no doubt, productivity. The politician has no real control over this domain and this must be left with the leadership with the civil service to address. 

Understanding the dynamics at play between the political leadership and the civil service provides insight into the sometimes circuitous route policy implementation takes. Noble objectives can be stymied by the practical realities; opposition to policy emanating from within can produce frustrating delays; and internal politics can weaken the system altogether. The way forward is to find strategies to minimise these realities.