It’s hard to believe that it has been three years since the Bahamians participated in a national referendum on matters that deeply affected their fundamental values. Since that dreadful day of February 27th 2002, despite promises made, the Bahamas is no closer today to amending its constitution than it was on referendum day. This well-intended piece of legislation would have eased the burdens of thousands suffering from a lack of constitutional protection. This would have taken the Bahamian electoral to the next level of democratic reform by having an independent Boundaries Commission, unlike the politically manipulated system that currently exist. Thanks to an intelligent person like the former Attorney General, the Honorable Paul Adderley, the sincere and promised efforts to amend the Bahamian Constitution was sabotaged by those who by their selfish action indicated quite clearly the fact that they do not care about basic human rights and democracy in the Bahamas.
Can you imagine a government and a political party that came to power on January 10th, 1967 on an anti-discrimination platform against the UBP government that had denied the masses in a number of areas now being just as culpable and oppressive when it came to eliminate the sinful act of discrimination against a segment of the Bahamian population? The oppressed has now become the oppressors. The Bahamas must have been the laughing stock of the world and especially in the region where the Bahamas is the only country that lacked such constitutional protection against discrimination. Just recently at a press conference, Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell while addressing the very negative Bahamas Human Rights report by the United States government that accused the Bahamian government of discrimination indicated that discrimination in any of the institutions of the Bahamas government is now allowed. A reporter quickly reminded him that the Constitution of the Bahamas permits discrimination against women who exercise their right to choose and marry a foreign spouse.
The Bahamian Constitution is an excellent document in terms of its construction. It is the same document with some modifications that Britain had created to allow dozens of its former colonies beginning with Ghana back in 1957 to be granted Independence. Therefore, this document had been proven and tested. Regrettably, the Bahamian Constitution was not a perfect document. For those who can recall, there was little public discussion on the Bahamian Constitution back in 1972 when a Bahamian delegation made up of representatives from all of the major political parties at the time visited London to finalize the construction of the Constitution. Unfortunately, there was not a single female delegate in the group and consequently the views of the Bahamian women were not considered during the negotiations. It was anticipated that at some point a simple amendment process called a referendum would remedy any serious defect in the Constitution. This is what happened to the American Constitution that has remained the same for the past two hundred and thirty years. However, there have been a total of at least twenty-six amendments since then. These amendments take into account defects or problems that were not anticipated at the time the constitution was written. For example, the 21st amendment banned the sale of alcohol during the days of prohibition, something that no one could have predicted.
Nevertheless, Independence was achieved on July 10th 1973 with the provisions of the Constitution simultaneously coming into effect. Almost immediately, it was obvious to any person of reasonable firmness that there were certain problems with ambiguous interpretation of the Constitution. ﾠBut, this was no problem as the Privy Council gave a final interpretation as to what were the intentions of the Constitution.
Incredibly, a most disturbing trend quickly became established shortly after Independence. In 1977, the Privy Council unanimously ruled in the D’Arcy Ryan case of a Canadian citizen (therefore a belonger) married to a Bahamian woman for thirty who could trace her roots all the way back to the Eleutheran Adventurers was entitled to Bahamian status. In a most contemptuous manner, the rulings of the Privy Council were ignored and the PLP government of the day refused to grant Mr. Ryan his Bahamian citizenship. Since that high profile case, an avalanche of similar cases came to the public’s attention, with little or no help from the Bahamas government. Without status, a man could not help to provide for his family. The end result was that many such families had no choice but to leave the Bahamas, along with the children of such a union who were also denied consideration for Bahamian status as well. This was a social disaster as families were separated, broken or financially suffered. An insensitive Bahamian government simply ignored the cries for help. For Bahamian men marrying foreign spouses, no such problems arose as status of their spouse and offspring’s was a constitutional entitlement.
During the twenty-five year rule of the first PLP government, the Immigration Department became one of the most corrupt and abused departments of the government. It was used to whip people in line or otherwise intimidate then. This was most evil as anyone who spoke out against the PLP government, the consequences were swift and certain. A complete denial of ﾠor experiencing some frustrating difficulty obtaining one’s constitutional rights to status became the standard policy of thhe PLP government was an obvious national disgrace One of the campaign promises made by Hubert Ingraham and the FNM in 1992 was to have a referendum to amend the constitution to eliminate this discrepancy in the constitution. This would provide equal opportunity for Bahamian women who marry a foreign spouse the same as a Bahamian male who marry a foreigner, hence finally getting rid of the suffering far too many families had gone through. After all, no country will entertain a constitution that allows undue suffering and hardship on its own citizens as the Bahamian Constitution did.
When presented in the House of Parliament, the provisions of the Referendum unanimously passed. It appeared that the Bahamian people had reached a level of mature responsibility. Almost immediately after voting for it in Parliament, Perry Christie demonstrated that he is the ultimate “flip-flopper” by campaigning against the referendum. Backed by certain religious leaders, the PLP branded the referendum as “evil” and something that they did not understand. Surely they must have understood the hell people were catching without the necessary constitutional protection. Furthermore, a very aggressive educational campaign was waged ﾠto answer any question one had and to deal with any issue that was not understood. Or was it simply that the PLP didn’t care or have a conscience?
The PLP indicated that because of the close proximity to the General Election, the referendum could have waited. How can the rights of people wait for convenience? They promised that if they become the next government that “within thirty days of becoming government, they would appoint a constitutional committee” to oversee a referendum. The impression given was that there would be a referendum in 6-8 months. Of course, time has revealed that this was all wishful thinking. The timetables indicated and promised by Perry Christie and the PLP is nothing short of a pipedream. In “Our Plan”, the PLP promised that the whole process from “start to finish” would take one year. This is the third year and with the next General Election in two years, chances are remote that there will be a referendum before then. The finally appointed Constitutional Committee are not yet even defined any issues that may be amended. In other words, the people of the Bahamas were taken for a ride and those who might have benefited from the passing of referendum 2002 will simply continue to catch hell.
Ironically, this week on the third anniversary of the referendum, Social Services and Women’s Affairs Minister, the Honorable Melanie Griffin is attending the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations in New York. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Beijing (1995) Declaration, which deals with a comprehensive policy document for the empowerment of women and gender equality, and secondly the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women. How can Minister Griffin have the gall to show up to such a meeting? How can she fix her mouth to tell this concern group that her PLP government cares about the plight of women? As a senior PLP in Referendum 2002, Melanie Griffin battled hard against Bahamian women having the same rights she is now in New York trying to promote. How hypocritical! Melanie Griffin and her PLP are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. The Bahamas must be the laughing stock at this meeting. Unless Minister Griffin’s attitude has changed with respect to equality for women, it is pointless putting her on any Committee that promotes equality. She will be a hindrance to progress. In “Our Plan” equality for women is not specifically mentioned and nothing more than oppressive insensitivity can be expected from this PLP government. I hate to say it but I mentioned on the day of the referendum defeat that Bahamians would regret rejecting the provisions of the referendum. On March 8th, 2005 the observance of International Women’s Day will give Prime Minister Perry Christie and the PLP a chance to reflect on the damage to the Bahamian society they have created by not supporting the referendum.
Dr Leatendore Percentie D.D.S
Boston, Massachusetts
March 5th, 2005
