Bermuda and the Struggle for Reform

Bermuda and the Struggle for Reform: Race, Politics and Ideology, 1944-1998 by Walton Brown Jr 

This book is a study of the quest for social reform in Bermuda. It starts with the Bermuda Workers Association, the first organisation combining economic, social and political struggles and which sought to transform Bermuda for the betterment of its people; it ends with the 1998 election of the Progressive Labour Party, the party formed in 1963 to carry on with the agenda for social and political reform. A number of themes are brought into relief which will help the reader to better understand the making of modern Bermuda: (1) the insertion of race into the fabric of modern Bermuda; (2) the successful use of ideology by the dominant elite to hold on to power; and (3) the limited role played by the formal political process in effecting change. A rich source of archival material brings new insights into the making of modern Bermuda. 

 

Available August 15

The PLP's Economic Record

Last week during the Motion to Adjourn in Parliament, MPs took the occasion to reflect on the PLP record. No doubt this will continue until the House rises for the summer recess and as political parties prepare for the election call, whenever that may be. There will be the inevitable posturing and a great deal of postulation. My reflections in this respect will today be limited to an assessment of the PLP government’s economic record. This government is most often criticised for an escalating national debt and over-expenditure on capital projects, leading to a seemingly logical conclusion that the PLP have been inept stewards of the economy. 

There can be no denying that our national debt has increased significantly over the past 13 years; it is equally true that many capital projects have greatly exceeded the allocated budgets. Other than the $200 million in guarantees provided by government to prevent the collapse of Butterfield Bank (which few objected to) most of the debt has been generated to provide a greater measure of services to people in need increased pensions, day care, free public transportation for students, lower cost housing, and so on. Conservative economists will tell you a balanced budget is paramount and will cut services to people to ensure this. We have seen this in many other countries and we saw it in under many years of the UBP. Liberal economists will tell you debt is an effective short term measure to protect, help and to advance those who are either vulnerable or who have been marginalised by inherited circumstances. The Progressive Labour Party stands unapologetically in this liberal camp. 

This stance though, is not without qualification. There are legally imposed limits to the debt and we have never defaulted or been late on any payment. The scaremongers calculate the per capita debt and leave the impression it is out of control. It is sobering to consider our national debt. But it is equally of note that in a world still strained by the global financial stress we have kept our debt levels at significantly lower levels than virtually every country in the developed world. Sceptics will dismiss this; ratings agencies, the IMF and the United Kingdom will not.

Capital projects seem to be the bane of most governments, everywhere. The PLP’s record is no better, and no worse than that of the UBP. The $88 million Berkeley Institute project escalating to $110 million under the PLP needs to be assessed in tandem with the Airport escalating under the UBP from $9 million to $25 million. The over-expenditure on such projects is not something intrinsic to the PLP, as some commentators would have you believe, it is intrinsic, I believe, to government managed projects. And we need to think of new and better ways to address this. For every airport project over-run or Dockyard project there is a Princess Diana memorial fountain. 

These two issues need to be examined alongside the work done by government to strengthen Bermuda’s economy. It is an unfortunate reality that negative commentary always displaces good news. The good news is that Bermuda was saved from being placed on the “blacklist” created by the OECD of the ill-named and hypocritically constructed list of “tax havens” due to the detailed, prolonged and below the radar work of this government. Too many of us take this accomplishment for granted because we never endured to consequences of being placed on the negative list.

The good news is that government has created business zones designed to provide greater opportunities for growth in economically depressed areas through tax and other incentives. And the good news is that government has begun the process of restraining public expenditure through budget cuts and more effective management of the growth in the number of government jobs.

This government has certainly made mistakes in the area of the economy; it would be almost impossible for any government not to have made any in 13 years of governance. On balance, though, while the ride may remain choppy for as long as the recession continues, we are moving in the right direction.

The Problem with Anonymity

In 1995, while campaigning for a “yes” vote in the independence referendum, I began receiving telephone calls from an anonymous, raspy-voiced man, who was expressing his opposition to my efforts. This continued for about four months. After the referendum was held he called again to insist I leave the issue alone. When I asked him why he seemed fearful of discussing the issue he replied, “All you monkeys should go back to Africa anyway.” Following this racist comment I contacted Chief Inspector Jonathan Smith, who traced the call to a business located on East Broadway. When a raspy-voiced man working there was questioned by the police, this individual denied ever calling me. From that day forward, however, I have not received another phone call from this person.

My caller was a racist and a coward, emboldened by anonymity. The minute he was found out he crawled away as cowards do. His goal was to malign, to stir the pot of negativity and with no effort to contribute toward a rational discussion of a critically important issue. This is one of the problems inherent in much of the anonymity pervasive in what passes for political commentary today. 

Our news media sites are replete with the anonymous and cowardly naggers of negativism, the pushers of petty, partisan political rhetoric. In large countries the effect is minimal since there is a multitude of media outlets and a wide and diverse range of views. In little Bermuda, it is easy for a cabal of activists to coordinate a media onslaught, with great effect, when guaranteed anonymity.  Comments, seemingly held by a wide range of people, in some instances are part of a clear strategy organized by a few to seek political advantage.  One consequence of this is the imagination of a “crisis” far deeper and more severe than it actually is; another is the lack of real discussion as we simply speak across one another.

A less obvious consequence is the weakening of trust. The person who greets you warmly could be the one pillorying you in that anonymous letter. Again, the politics of small places makes this scenario far from abstract. One outcome? A greater level of suspicion of people by public figures than would otherwise be the case.

There are times when anonymity is essential. There is the famous case of American diplomat George Kennan who in 1947 published a transformative article on US-Soviet relations in Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym “X”.  The magazine editors provided anonymity because of Kennan’s position and the timely importance of his observations during the outset of the Cold War. Here, the Progressive Group, who organized the theatre boycott in 1959, remained anonymous so that the noble cause they fought for remained the sole focus. Employees, public and private, with knowledge of illegal activities or ethics violations have a moral obligation to expose wrongdoing and so they too should be protected. What we witness for the most part today, though, falls far short of selfless engagement.

Free speech is a sacrosanct right in a democracy; it is necessarily accompanied by responsibility. We need to get to a point where we embrace both. We can begin with this newspaper. I have in the past implored the editor to abandon the practice of publishing anonymous letters and do so again today. It would be a small yet symbolic step toward a more mature engagement on the issues that shape our public discourse.

A Consequence of Globalisation

The decision by then Premier Ewart Brown to provide refuge to four Guantánamo detainees in Bermuda in June 2009 continues to vex residents some two years after the fact. We now know that the American and British governments are involved in discussions to provide a long term solution to the limbo-like status of the Uighurs; but whatever the outcome of these discussions, the situation brings into relief two aspects of our current political status: (1) Bermuda’s interests do not necessarily run parallel to the UK’s interests and (2) the rapid meshing of domestic policy with foreign policy will likely see more contested terrain on issues between Bermuda and Britain in the months and years ahead.

There is no doubt the decision to assist the United States with the detainee base closure was an act of friendship. The US is our most important trading partner, largest source of tourists, the country where most of our students get tertiary education and residents love the US Customs pre-clearance facility at the airport. The decision almost certainly strengthened our relationship with the US and has put us in a stronger position with the world’s most powerful country. The value of this is incalculable. 

This matters not to the United Kingdom government since their ties are not as encompassing, looking as they do both across the pond and across the channel. Dr Brown positioned Bermuda better with the United States and I suspect history will render this judgment. For those conspiracy theorists seemingly beset with an unrelenting agitation and who believe there was some personal benefit for Dr Brown, they necessarily have to argue that President Obama, or at least US Attorney General  Eric Holder, bestowed this benefit. They have to know this is ludicrous and this is why they have been silent on this aspect of their allegations. 

The detainee decision involved aspects of both domestic and foreign policy, the former the responsibility of Bermuda and the latter falling under the UK’s remit. Under these circumstances whose authority should prevail? It is interesting to note that as early as 2003 the British government recognized this growing challenge posed by this coming together of foreign and domestic issues. Lord Triesman made the following observation when speaking about the UK relationship with the Overseas Territories: “We are moving into a world which is becoming ever-more interconnected, in which the distinction between domestic and foreign policy will become less and less clear.”  

The UK government has gone even further by granting further responsibilities to its governors in the OTs. These responsibilities clearly fall outside of the powers granted to the UK under our constitution but it is defended on the grounds that that “the UK bears ultimate responsibility for the territories.”

Under these circumstances it simply cannot be that the mere assertion by the UK government that they have sole authority on an issue makes it valid. More importantly, the door is now open for the Bermuda government to argue for greater responsibility in the international arena because key areas of domestic policy—finance, environment, telecommunications—are being determined at the global level.

Bermuda does not have the luxury of being able to first sort out the “big” issues such as crime, education, health care and the environment and then move on “less pressing” issues in the international arena. The changes at the global level will continue and they will continue to affect us whether we are sitting around the table or not. Securing a seat, however, allows us to shape both the discussions and decisions.

Time to Discuss Independence

Whenever a politician raises the notion of national independence for Bermuda there is a predictable flow of negative commentary. Even though independence is the natural political framework for countries and the democracy we all claim to hold so dearly is only fully realized as a sovereign state,  there are those in this country who would have you believe the quest for independence is both unnatural and unpalatable. Untrue.

We need an open an honest examination of our future constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom. We need this for the simple fact that Bermuda’s interests and the UK’s interest do not necessarily run in tandem. Some of us prefer to remain ostrich-like on this issue but such a divergence of interests can lead to policies that fundamentally weaken Bermuda.

We saw this most dramatically two years ago when Prime Minister Gordon Brown , speaking before finance ministers of the G20 countries stated, “the old tax havens have no place in this new world” and indicated his intent to pursue a common tax policy. Although mislabeled and misunderstood, Bermuda was included in that category. As a British Overseas Territory, without the ability to speak on the international stage without UK permission, our very financial foundation was threatened as the Prime Minister pursued what he saw as the UK’s best interests.

Almost ten years ago Bermuda initiated a challenge to the Isle of Man over a satellite slot. Again, solely because of our constitutional status, the UK Office of Communications represents both territories before the International Telecommunication Union, the global body which administers satellite assignments. This is truly mind-boggling. In an area which represents a potential growth opportunity for Bermuda we lack the capacity to clearly articulate and advocate our own interests. We are required to rely on the protective role played by our benevolent administering power, the United Kingdom.

The success we continue to enjoy in global finance has much to do with the concerted, collaborative effort of government and the private sector in Bermuda and in spite of the challenges thrown us by the UK. There are those who will quickly respond that these policies were UK Labour policies now completely rejected by Prime Minister Cameron’s administration and that Bermuda is in a much better position. This is immaterial. Should Bermuda’s decision about its constitutional future be contingent on the vagaries of British politics and the sensibilities of its leaders?

One argument advanced by the anti-independence advocates is that “now is not the time.” Whenever I ask when would be the right time I am usually met with silence. This issue of our ability to best pursue our financial interests in the international arena will not go away and given all that we see going on there will likely be more challenges on the horizon. This is the time to consider what tools, what structure we need to strengthen our economy. 

The economic case for independence is one part of what should be part of a far more extensive dialogue we have on Bermuda’s constitutional future. We have long since passed the era of revolutionary roads to independence where nationalist ideology and anti-imperialist rhetoric sufficed as the clarion call. The principle, though, of real self-government—not merely internal self-government—remains valid. This is what needs to be addressed.  We should not delude ourselves into thinking we can determine the right time for this discussion to take place, as if the rapidly changing world has no bearing on our destiny. The time is now and it requires your full participation.

Sober Refelection is Needed

From time to time, political pundits and party leaders raise the spectre of restructuring aspects of Bermuda’s electoral system. While almost always presented as being in the “national” interest there is, nonetheless, an unmistakable more narrowly defined interest as well. The One Bermuda Alliance’s call for fixed term elections is the latest incarnation of this effort.

On its face, setting a fixed date for general elections seems sensible: all parties as well as voters will know when to prepare and when to vote well in advance. We see this embraced by our closest friend and most important ally the United States and they have set the standard for democratic participation around the world. 

The US system, though, is structured in a fundamentally different way from Bermuda’s parliamentary system and fixed-term elections would sit uncomfortably. The presidential system on which the US is based has direct elections for its leader; and its Congress can continue to operate even with defeats on important votes. By contrast, based on the UK system, our leader is elected indirectly and Government would fall if a key vote in Parliament fails. 

Fixed term elections are a rarity under parliamentary democracies for a reason. There is a long tradition of governance being based on retaining the confidence of the people, through their elected representatives. When that confidence manifestly disappears, an election is the necessary outcome. We saw that recently in Canada and Bermuda came close to this in 2009 with the political rupture caused by Premier Brown’s decision to bring four Guantanamo detainees to Bermuda. 

Votes of no confidence are critical to the parliamentary system and help to keep governing parties on their toes; it is a buffer between the people and wanton and reckless policies. As we have just been reminded, our constitution does not recognise political parties; the leader is that person whom the Governor accepts as commanding the support of the majority of MPs. In the absence of that support an election would inevitably follow. 

Our current system actually grants greater power to the people over Parliament than is often appreciated. The fact that people do not act on the power they have is another story altogether.

The call for fixed term elections suggests that it creates a more level playing field between parties since the time is known well in advance. In fact, the norm is for elections to be called on a four to five year timeframe in Bermuda and political parties have almost always been prepared. After all, since we know the upper limit is five years, parties typically begin preparations by the third year in any event. The only time in our democratic history we have had a break from this practice was in the first half of the 1980s under the leadership of Sir John Swan. Having had an election in 1980, the then-Mr Swan called a subsequent election in 1983, ostensibly to get a personal mandate, but really to take advantage of the boost in support he received after becoming Premier in 1982. And then he called another one in 1985 to benefit from the division that fragmented the PLP.

We will no doubt continue to debate the suitability of our political system, whether this structure represents the best democratic shell for effective governance. Calls for the abolition of political parties, proportional representation and now, fixed dates for elections should all be assessed soberly. They need to be assessed within the context of our political structure and not simply parachuted in from a fundamentally different paradigm. It may well be that some reforms will enhance democratic participation and strengthen people’s rights; and we may need to move in that direction. But reform simply to benefit a political party is likely to be a non-starter.

Putting Gay Rights Back on the Agenda

Today’s planned rally on the steps of City Hall marks an important symbolic step forward for the rights of gay people in Bermuda. Ms Krystl Assan’s recent experience at a local guest house has pushed her to organize this effort to rightly demand that people be treated equally under the law irrespective of their sexual orientation. Those who embrace human rights for all, have to know that such rights are not meant to be applied selectively: The struggle for gay rights should be a struggle we all embrace.

We have not yet seen the courage to specifically set out “sexual orientation” as a protected category under the Human Rights Act. In the absence of this, there is no protection for gay,, lesbian and transgender people against discrimination in the workplace, housing or in the delivery of services.  There is an argument out there which posits that the Bermuda Constitution provides such protection without specifically mentioning sexual orientation and that there should be a test legal case to assert it. This is not good enough. If the Human Rights Act is to have meaning and applicability for all then change must begin here.  Bermuda in the 21^st century must first take this minimal step if we are to continue down the road to justice for all. 

Like all struggles for reform, the quest for gay rights requires a critical mass of activists who can both humanize the struggle and moblise support. It will not come through the passivity of online strategies or quiet conversations with politicians who nod with approval and then fail to act. I made this point four years ago when I met with a local gay rights group only to be met with the response that “politicians should do what’s right.” While I agree with this sentiment, the reality of politics in Bermuda on this issue is that politicians will only act when faced with sustained public pressure. The only elected Member of Parliament who acted decisively on this issue was Ms Rene Webb, who introduced legislative reform as a private ember’s bill. But even this effort raised questions since Ms Webb never lobbied and never strategized to get support .

Ms Assan’s work will certainly help put the issue back on the agenda but this is insufficient. Those public figures who demand rights for gays loudly behind doors would do well to eat a slice of courage cake and step up and out into the public domain to help win greater public support. For some reason too many of us still view the issue of gay rights as a taboo topic. With at least ten percent of the population gay or lesbian the discussion about sexual orientation should be part of our mainstream discussion; as mainstream as are our discussions about education, violence and the economy.

Local surveys on gay rights always show strong public support for treating people equally irrespective of sexual orientation.   Resistance typically comes from a minority of pseudo-religious zealots providing a selective reading of the Bible to justify their bigotry. Even the casual reader of the Bible will know that not only did Jesus embrace everyone, he also treated them all equally. More importantly, modern societies make retrograde decisions when they make policy and laws based on interpretations of holy texts. 

Bermuda has a long history of discrimination rooted in slavery, the restricted vote and racial segregation. Those who championed resistance to these injustices, those who have benefitted from their elimination, should be sensitive to any discrimination set upon any other group. And we need to say collectively that now is the time for change.