Change won't help UBP

April 18, 2008

Dear Sir,

I would like to thank Michael Fahy, the chairman of the UBP, for the time and effort he took to respond to my letters of January 4 and March 18 suggesting the UBP disband. I recognise that this is not an easy subject to discuss publicly because many members and supporters of the UBP worked diligently and with honour to help make Bermuda the great country it is today. I hope for the sake of the country that we can work with the same diligence and honour to find a solution.

In his letter, and with skill and eloquence, Mr. Fahy discussed the strengths of the party today and the need for change in the future. Unfortunately, these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand because the need to disband the UBP is solely a result of its past – how that past is viewed and by whom. Here's why.

I think we all can agree that if there is little or no chance of the UBP ever again winning the government, then it should disband. Further, I think we also can agree that the ability of the UBP to win an election will be determined by the party's ability to gain approval of a significant percentage of the swing voter – the black voter. For this reason, it is only the perspective of the black swing voter that is relevant to the discussion of whether the UBP should disband.

For the purposes of our discussion, I have excluded from the definition of black swing voter anyone who so strongly aligns his or her interests with the PLP that they would never vote for any other party (whether the UBP or some future party not connected with the UBP). This leaves us with a very large group of black swing voters. Unfortunately, at present, only a very small percentage of those voters are without some level of disdain for the UBP because of its past history. To understand this, we must try to look at the history of both parties from a black person's perspective.

The PLP came into existence to fight for worker's rights and racial equality, both of which were scandalously missing in the early years of post-segregation Bermuda. In other words, the founding goals of the PLP were, from any present perspective, clearly noble – the PLP was on the side of the angels.

The UBP came into existence for many honourable reasons (such as to continue the orderly growth of the island's economic prosperity, and to prevent the PLP from imposing income taxes, which would have destroyed international business in its infancy and left Bermuda today in economic ruin), but from the perspective of many blacks, the principle reason was to allow powerful white families to continue their oligarchic control at the expense of the black man. In other words, from the perspective of many black swing voters, the original goals of the UBP were racist.

So when Mr. Fahy argues that "a party can evolve and change in fundamental ways that can garner greater support across the community" and that the PLP came back from repeated election defeats and internal turmoil to successfully redefine themselves and win the Government, so then too can the UBP, he is forgetting one fundamental difference – from the black swing voter's perspective, the PLP's original raison d'être was honourable, indeed courageous, while the UBP's was racist. So even though the UBP can change its policies and change its people, the black swing voter will continue to hold it in disdain because of its perceived racist past.

In my letter of March 18 I set out the reasons why the UBP was able to win the government in the past but is unlikely to ever win again. I explained that, in the past, black voters' disdain for the UBP was counterbalanced by two factors: strong black UBP candidates (lawyers, doctors, and business and community leaders) and the black community's lack of faith in its own ability to govern, and why those counterbalancing factors no longer exist.

Mr. Fahy chose to completely ignore those reasons, and instead gave a white person's perspective of the UBP–a completely valid perspective, but one irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I challenge Mr. Fahy to address those reasons from a more relevant perspective.

But first I ask that he take a moment to close his eyes and imagine a world in which his father was prohibited from sitting in the front rows of a theatre because the ruling class didn't want his impure skin to touch theirs, a world in which he was not allowed to attend the schools that educated the ruling class's children because they said his mind was not capable of elevated thought, a world in which he scrimped and saved and borrowed enough money to attend university, but after he earned his degree, he still was denied a management position because it would be a sin against God for someone of his skin colour to lord authority over a man with the same skin colour as the ruling class.

Now, I ask that Mr. Fahy open his eyes and decide whether he would feel that a vote for the political party that had controlled the laws of that world would be a betrayal of the memory of each of his parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, neighbours and friends who suffered under such a world and fought valiantly to change it.

For once and for all we need to remove the race card from the election process by removing the political vehicle that for so many black Bermudians is a constant reminder of our racist past. Let the next election be a simple decision about who has the best candidates and the best policies. Disband the UBP.

CLEAN SLATE

Smith's

A step toward dialogue

April 28, 2008

Dear Sir,

"Double Standard" (The Royal Gazette April 21, 2008) asks how is "hatred" different from "racism". That is a question which I have frequently addressed and therefore realise that it is not easily understood.

However if Double Standard is serious about understanding she should attend a meeting of either CURB or Dialogue. The answer to that question would make a useful and enlightening discussion. Her own P.s. did not demonstrate a single standard either. She writes "the minority of black Bermudians" and then writes (not) "all white Bermudians". Could she have honestly written that only "a minority of white Bermudians" are racist?

In reference to "The Dialogue" portion of the" Big Conversation", it is also an answer to the letter writer who invited Bermudians to open a conversation with those they met in the doctor's office and in other casual contacts. The Dialogue takes place on a regular basis.

It is also a partial answer to "Let's Have it" (The Royal Gazette, April 23, 2008) who encourages 'passing on good works". She believes that we are" increasingly divided". But that view reflects a deliberate(?) ignoring of the fact that for almost four hundred years every Government in Bermuda adopted policies and practices that were intended to ensure that blacks and whites were segregated from the cradle to the grave, literally, and also to ensure the subordinate role of blacks and the supremacy of whites. I am not talking about slavery or some distant past. I am talking about most of my lifetime.

While the Government policy changed, any attempt to directly address or redress the long term consequences of those policies and practices is less than a year old. While it is true that the PLP has governed for almost a decade, our racial divide was not directly addressed by either the Alex Scott or Jennifer Smith Administration.

Even though the PLP victory encouraged some blacks and frustrated some whites, the overt outrage of whites and the black response has only begun to express itself with such vehemence since the Ewart Brown Administration has attempted to directly address the divide.

Even if there were non-racist and true love (rather than "hatred") with genuine goodwill on the part of every black and white person in Bermuda we could not overcome, in so brief a period, the "misconceptions, suspicion and even fear" which Cicero (The Royal Gazette April 8, 2008) describers as existing between the races.

We have to overcome the economic and psychological results of four hundred years of the destructive and racist policies of successive Governments which insisted on keeping us divided. Despite the views of Cicero who believes that we need "sober results oriented debates about economics, social mobility, education, family policy and the like" and who sees "the subject of race as the last thing that Bermuda needs", this Government needs to do both, particularly since it is, ultimately, the 400 years of race-based policies which have created our current "crises".

The very fact that Cicero expresses the view that Government needs to make amends with a white population that is increasingly made to feel foreign in their own land without, at the same time, acknowledging that most in the black population have always felt this way, particular since they saw that all of the benefits of this society were in the hands of whites and, to a large extent, still is, indicates that we already 'inhabit two Bermudas."

If we do not need the Big Conversation to tell us why, we need it as one tiny step toward beginning to speak to each other, voluntarily, in an honest fashion, across the great divide. It may not be much but for those who do attend since it has been completely in the hands of local black and white Bermudians it has made a great difference. Do not knock it if you have not tried it just because you either dislike or disagree with the Premier.

Those who have been fairly consistent are prepared to thank him even if they disagree with him for other reasons.

DR. EVA HODGSON

Crawl

Beating the wrong drum

May 5, 2008

Dear Sir,

In his latest article, 'Whither the UBP?' (May 5, 2008), your correspondent Matthew Taylor continues to imply that UBP Parliamentarians are at odds on the way forward for the Party. In particular, he identifies a group of 'Old Guard' MPs who apparently believe we should 'stay as we are.' Whilst I appreciate the journalistic interest in keeping alive a story of division and conflict, Mr. Taylor is simply beating the wrong drum.

The United Bermuda Party as a whole, from our Parliamentary group to our party executive, is addressing the need for change. The commitment to doing so is across the board, and work is underway on a variety of fronts.

This is a logical and natural outcome of the December election, as it would be for any political party in any jurisdiction wanting to win the support of more voters or, for that matter, any company in any locale wanting to improve its market share. Change is to be expected; indeed it is vital. Any organization that stands still goes nowhere.

I appreciate The Royal Gazette's interest in "whither the UBP', but Mr. Taylor's report creates a false issue with its underlying theme of division. There is no division on the need for change. I expect there will be intense debates on the adoption of specific changes, but these will be welcomed as the natural give and take within a party that reflects the diversity of the Island itself. If we did not have them, we would not be a true political party.

I am very confident we will come out of this process stronger than ever. This is an exciting time for the United Bermuda Party.

MICHAEL M. FAHY

Chairman

United Bermuda Party