A truly independent nation?
By ERICA WELLS,
Guardian News Editor -
Nassau, bahamas:
erica@nasguard.com -

Thirty-four years ago, on a still night just after midnight on July 10, when the brilliant black, gold and aquamarine flag of The Bahamas was raised for the first time on Clifford Park, Sir Arthur Foulkes remembered that his heart rate went up a little and that he was filled with a tremendous amount of pride.

"I felt very happy," he recalled. "The only regret I had was that when the flag was pulled up it was still, so there was no flag flapping in the wind – the flag was just hanging around the mast."

It was a time that tens of thousands of Bahamians witnessed and can recall with great pride, but probably few have thought about the significance of the event to any great extent since. In that moment, The Bahamas took complete responsibility for itself, but what exactly have we gained since becoming independent just over three decades ago? And are we truly independent, given our retention of many colonial trappings and the Privy Council?

For Sir Arthur, who was among the Free National Movement delegates attending the Independence talks in London in 1972, the answer, to the first question at least, is quite simple.

"There have been two big gains," he told The Nassau Guardian in an interview at his home. "One is psychological. It gives you a sense of pride, belonging and ownership, to know that this is your country, that you are a part of an independent nation, that you are no longer a colony."

Then there's the more practical side, he said. "We have been able to speak for ourselves in the councils of the world, and that's a big item."

And that point is definitely not lost on Sir Arthur, who was one of the people who opposed independence at that particular time, but not the concept of The Bahamas becoming independent.

It was 40 years ago, in 1967, that The Bahamas, still then a British colony, was faced with the dangerous prospect of having nerve gas dumped in its waters.

"That was when Cecil (Wallace-Whitfield) got so angry that he wanted to declare unilateral independence," recalled Sir Arthur.

"The Americans had canisters of nerve gas that they wanted to dispose of, and they decided, why not drop them in Bahamian waters, and we said, well no. We protested to the British government and we protested to the Americans, but they said we couldn't even talk to you because you are under Britain. We don't talk to colonies."

Eventually the British partially relented and allowed The Bahamas to send a delegation to Washington to be a part of its delegation in discussions with the Americans.

"One of the persons was Cecil who was leading [the delegation], and the Americans were saying this is safe, there's no problem, so Cecil said, 'if it's so safe dump it in the Hudson River,' and those were his famous words," says Sir Arthur.

"They couldn't do something like that now [that we are independent] – unless surreptitiously – without agreement," he said. "We can now speak for ourselves."

But for Dr. Ian Strachan, community activist and COB professor, the question of what we have gained since independence only raises more questions.

"What was the point of what we did and has the independence movement really benefited or hampered Caribbean nations, particularly those that are former British colonies?" Strachan asks.

"If you look at the history of the formation of settlements, it displaced the native inhabitants, introduced plantation societies. [Settlements] were never designed to be independent, but were designed to be dependent on the mother country."

Another question it raises, says Strachan, is whether The Bahamas can be self-reliant, given its size, vulnerabilities and absence of resources that have allowed other countries to become industrialized. "How do we expect to be autonomous when we have none of the things that allow us to protect our advantage in the world?"

As far as identifying the driving force behind the country's push for independence, Sir Arthur explains that although Bahamians were a distinct people long before July 10, 1973, and had long had a national identity, independence was about asserting to the world and ourselves the fact that we were a nation with a distinct Bahamian culture, an interesting history that set us on a particular path, "and that's what that was all about."

But how much asserting can we do given the fact that we have maintained some fairly significant ties to Britain, such as the Privy Council – the country's final court of appeal – and many of the colonial trappings, which for some are a grim reminder of the history of colonialism.

"I have a problem with us swearing our allegiance to the Queen, with the Queen being our Head of State," says Strachan. "To me, we don't have the sovereignty that we suggest we have. Our Members of Parliament and Senators should be swearing their allegiance to the Bahamian people who elected them and whom they are supposed to serve, who pay them and to whom they are answerable.

"I think we have all of these trappings and if we look at it carefully, I don't think there's a moral leg to stand on to maintain these trappings. I just don't. The history of slavery and colonialism alone is enough."

For others, the so-called "trappings" are inconsequential.

"Swearing our allegiance to the Queen is just a trapping, her heirs are her ministers, according to law, she has no power of her own," says Sir Arthur. "The British do it very well... the niceties of system, but she couldn't say today, no I cannot appoint you.'"

But if a post like the Governor General means nothing, why have one at all?

"It was thought that at the time the connection with Britain ought to be maintained, and as a small country the idea of having a Royal Bahamas Police Force and the royal this and that would add to the country's stability and our attraction as a tourist destination," explains Sir Arthur.

On the more practical side, The Bahamas' decision to retain the Privy Council, which sits in London, as opposed to joining the regional Caribbean Court of Justice, continues to receive mixed reviews.

For well-known lawyer Damien Gomez, replacing the Privy Council, which is used by many countries in the English-speaking Commonwealth, is a non-issue.

"You don't give up something you have to get something less," he told The Nassau Guardian.

"We don't have the technical resources here, the expertise, to readily find a replacement [for the Privy Council] from our own Bar. We are having problems with our local courts. [Former Supreme Court justices are having trouble getting their pensions]. Most of the supreme courts are housed in an antiquated, obsolete building. Modern facilities are not available. For us to seriously speak about having a local final court of appeal we would have to address our own deficiencies, and no government since independence has taken the issue of resourcing the courts seriously."

Despite the expertise and perceived stability that a body like the Privy Council provides for countries like The Bahamas, some still feel that Bahamians should be able to decide what laws they wish to abide by.

"If it is argued for the sake of impartiality or protection against compromise in the judicial system because of our size, I think the next step should be a regional court," says Strachan.

Monarch or Republic

Sir Arthur admits that if the question of whether The Bahamas should become a republic were put to the people, he would probably vote for the country to become a Republic, removing the Queen as Head of State.

However, that question is not a new one, and in fact was one of the topics discussed by the Constitutional Reform Commission, formed by the former Progressive Liberal Party administration.

Paul Adderley, co-chairman of the commission and a former attorney general, is eager for the issue to progress from the discussion stage to real consideration, and some say it is only a matter of time before it becomes a reality.

"People should be happy to talk about it," he told The Guardian. "I don't know what the fear is."

Based on the recommendation of the commission, under a Republic, the Queen, as head of state, would be replaced by a President, but that would be the only change.

"Nothing is going to happen to the system of governance. Right now, The Bahamas is technically a monarchy and that is absolute nonsense," said Adderley, who notes that there are some Bahamians who will not accept the reality that the country is in theory a monarchy.

Adderley believes that removing the Queen, as head of state would be the last step in the complete independence of The Bahamas.

"The Bahamas should extricate itself out of the 19th Century and try to think of herself as a 21st Century country," says Adderley. "I don"t think the country is ready for it yet because it hasn't been told much about it by the political leaders."

If we are to break ties completely with Britain, Sir Arthur believes that it is important that ties are made elsewhere.

"If we are going to change it we have to put something in place just as impressive," he says. "When we have the guards come out for the opening of the Supreme Court, the policemen in their uniforms and the judges in their red robes, the person who is looking at that doesn't verbalize it, but what it is saying is, we have a disciplined country, we have a country with law and order, that speaks to him. Those things are very important – ritual and ceremony are very important because they speak to people and they have an impression on even the most intellectual of us. So even if we don't do that particular ritual, we have to do something else – whether it's a queen or a president."

But the issue of ties obviously extends beyond the ceremony and ritual. The Bahamas may be forced to make more practical ties, especially regional ones, which it has done a pretty good job of avoiding up to now.

"We got our independence when the world was changing," notes Sir Arthur. "Now it's about pooling sovereignty. The best example is the European Union. The British are most reluctant to do that, and we are similar to them. In the Caribbean we are resistant to many things about Caricom but as time goes on we will have to trade that in."

The issue of The Bahamas' independence can also be looked at as it relates to its relationship with the United States. Some have even gone as far as to argue that The Bahamas has exchanged one mother country for another.

"We stopped being a colony of Britain but essentially we've become a sort of closet US protectorate," says Strachan. "We are of strategic importance to America. We are also one of America's favorite playgrounds and that's been a blessing and a curse."

Sir Arthur would agree that The Bahamas' relationship with the US has been good economically, and notes that have taken advantage of that, but he also agrees that with that come its own problems.

"We are so close that we feel the immediate affect of American culture and the difficulty is, how do we maintain our Bahamian identity and culture in the face of this huge, cultural Goliath called America? asks Sir Arthur. "Some of it is not edifying but we have to contend with that."

Are we better off today?

Perhaps the more difficult question to answer is, are we better off today, or would we have been better off without independence?

Strachan admits that it's a question that he cannot answer, but points to Bermuda, which voted against independence in 1995, and has the highest per capita income in the world.

"Their women live until they are 80 and their men in the high 70s [higher than the global average]," notes Strachan. "If you look at Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cuba, you have to ask yourself, has independence been the right way forward for Caribbean people generally, especially when you consider the high rate of migration, brain drain, the state of the economies, inflation."

Strachan also points to the high rate of crime in the Caribbean, which was cited as the most violent region in the world in a recent United Nations/World Bank report.

As an educator, it's not surprising that Strachan would also use the introduction of the BGCSE 15 years ago – which replaced the British-regulated BGC high school exams – as another opportunity to question the independence movement.

"The BGCSE is an extension of the independence movement, a de-colonization type move. Are we more competitive now than prior to (19) 92? Are we able to measure up in the region or around the world, by virtue of the fact that we took an exam that so many others were taking? Strachan asks.

"I don't know that I have the answer, but I think it's worthwhile asking."

Philosophically, Strachan says that he believes in decolonization as a concept, because of the history of the colonial relationship – the exploitation and the way it devalued its subjects.

"I believe, however, that the colonies, including The Bahamas, let the mother country off the hook way too easily," he says. "Britain should have been forced to take more responsibility for assisting us to enter the modern age and become a fully evolved society, as much as possible given our limitations. This should have been done by those who created these settlements."

While Sir Arthur thinks Bahamians are better off psychologically, since gaining independence, otherwise, he says there is very little difference between pre-1973 and post 1973.

The Bahamas already had internal self government, and there were few things the country was not able to do then, that it was able to do afterwards, Sir Arthur adds.

"It may have been better off in terms of protection, such as policing our waters – then again you don't know, the Royal Navy may have said 'that's your problem'."

Although, Sir Arthur does wonder what would have happened if one of the most darkest times in the country's history, when the illegal drug trade destroyed whole families and communities, would have turned out differently if The Bahamas was still a colony.

"I've often pondered what would have happened if we had still had a Royal Governor during the drug era. I wonder whether that may have been different. But on the whole I think we manage," said Sir Arthur. "That was a very rough period. Within the first decade of our independence we were hit with that problem, in the late [19] 70s, early [19] 80s. I don't know if a lot of Bahamians appreciate how near the edge of disaster we were, or the lasting affect that had on us as a people. Our values were totally destroyed."

But despite the challenges, Sir Arthur says he has a pretty optimistic view of the country's future. "We have a beautiful country. We have some negative aspects of our culture, some structural weaknesses in our society but on the whole we are still a great country. The positives far outweigh the negatives and if we build on the positives and try to have a greater awareness of our culture and destiny as a people, I am very, very optimistic about the future of The Bahamas."

In an addition to looking at the issue of the country's independence, Strachan would like for Bahamians to look at the meaning of independence on a more practical level.

"It's not just that the nation needs to be more independent, the people need to be more independent," urges Strachan. "People need to take responsibility for their country, for the state of the schools, the conduct of their church leaders, the behavior of their representatives, waste, the environment. We need to be more responsible and willing to make decisions more independently, instead of waiting for the government to do everything.

"It goes back to colonialism, echoed from the mother country-colony relationship, to the government politician rank and file-citizen relationship. People don't take responsibility. That is the first battle we have to fight before we worry about whether or not we can thumb our noses in the face of anyone else."