14 September, 2014

Dear Sir,

On a recent social media blog the subject of political reform and the candidate selection process created a long thread of dialogue. Voter ignorance of potential rights denied them by our current electoral system is huge among the Bermuda populace and indeed many parts of the global population.

Prior to 1968 all elections were based on the property vote. Bermuda lagged behind Britain and the issue of total enfranchisement eventually became a subject of debate for a few decades before finally becoming adopted in the latter 1960s.

Those upholding that system which had only a few thousand electors, did not recognise their privilege and had their own rationale with centuries of continuos governance to back up their argument that we had an efficient system, which needed no change. The idea of everyone having a right to participate in an election and not this exclusivity with the prerequisite of being a property owner, was an alien concept. It was the equivalent of not having shares in the company, how could you vote and not have shares?

Bermuda was decades behind Britain who, after a vigorous campaign beginning in the middle of the 19th century finally adopted total adult suffrage for both male and female in 1928, preceded with heroic stances such as the infamous suffragette Emily Davison who, in 1913, threw herself in front of the King’s horse at the Epsom Derby.

While no one died in our Island as a sacrifice, Bermuda had its campaigners and with a little nudge by the governor, by 1968 had gained what was first believed as giving everyone the right to vote. However, what seemed as an improvement of increasing the electorate from a few thousand privileged to the extended population above the age of 18 became subtly replaced by another system of exclusivity.

Political parties became a new creation, initially instituted to galvanise political action to attain power, did succeed in becoming the instruments to gain power. However, without proper forethought had unintended consequence in it’s construct, political parties had the similar effect by removing the rights of every voter and transferring them to those with party membership.

Once Bermuda adopted party politics there was no room for any other participation, therefore the only ships in town became the two parties. It became ipso facto that the real road to Parliament was not in the hands of the electorate, it was now through adoption of a political party and by extension all the party supporters and voters needed a vehicle to have the “right”, and not have to seek the privilege to participate.

That being the case, means that the real choice first presumed to be the right of everyone, is actually left as a privilege only for party members. It is no wonder that the primary selection of candidates is first approved by as little as 8 persons, called selection committee, then forwarded to a branch caucus selection were the winner will receive as little as 20 votes, then transferred back to a central committee that will ratify the branch selection.

Political party membership from the inception of party politics has only ever attracted a small percentage of the electoral population. Essentially equating with the same number of electors as was the case in the pre-1960s, these party members participate in the most meaningful aspect of the election which is selection and adoption of a candidate, who will inevitably have a real chance to win the seat as a parliamentarian.

The United States was initially formed without parties and when political parties began they experience the same problem in the early 19th century. As a result of voter alienation from the electoral process, a progressive movement emerged trying to take that privilege from the parties and put power back into the hands of the electorate. They developed open primaries which gave every person the right to stand for any party of choice if endorsed by their constituents. It also gave every voter the right to participate in a party primary to determine who stands in a general election. 17 States in the USA adopted this electoral method, while the remainder continue with caucus primaries with members only participating and at times they have primary conventions but again members only.

It would be very easy and useful for Bermuda to have open primaries. It is totally unfair for current party voters to be systemically excluded from the first choice of candidate. It is a further insult to what should be a right to stand for any party one wishes and gain the endorsement of his/her fellow constituent. Not the case were one has to become approved by a selection committee then handed to a narrow 50 member branch.

We know in safe seats a party will get 700 to 800 votes yet those voters do not realise by process they are only ratifying a decision which despite of their religious support, they have no rights unless they decide to enjoin in the privilege by becoming a party member. Current party supporters unwittingly have taken the same stance as the supporters of the property vote system and the idea of voter rights to them also is like a foreign language and an alien concept.

Despite the OBA claim of being a reform party and the new leader of the PLP proclaiming a new day and new way, neither the leaders nor parties members have taken on the idea of empowering the electorate which includes the majority of their real supporters, the voter.

KHALID WASI