Menu:

 

Policy, ideology and party politics

Date Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007
Author: Walton Brown Jr.

Both the PLP and UBP today have evolved significantly since the origin of party politics in the 1960s. The edge of ideological politics softened with the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s and the current focus from a policy and legislative standpoint has more to do with issues explicitly than class warfare. To be sure, these parties have not shed completely the ideological garb they wrapped themselves in at birth but that clothing has been transformed more into an umbrella, used during inclement political weather. As the parties ready themselves for the next election we take this opportunity to reflect on their vision, platform and overall thrust to assess how this is likely to sit with voters.

The PLP was the first party born during Bermuda’s greater step toward democracy. When Parliament passed legislation (after a successful campaign by the Committee for Universal Suffrage) in 1963 granting the vote to all adults—even though an extra vote was given to landowners—the supporters of progressive reform formed the PLP. During the 1963 election, of the nine candidates who ran under the PLP, six were elected, forming a united  front in a Parliament of, ostensibly, independents. The UBP was formed a year later; incidentally, most of the Members of Colonial Parliament joined the UBP, making it the de facto governing party—even though they had campaigned in the election against party politics.

The PLP called for a comprehensive slate of reforms, pressed for the rights of workers and black people and essentially presented themselves as a reformist labour party. There has been repeated comment about a socialist dimension to the PLP but this has never been reflected in any policy proposals. For its part, the UBP came to fruition representing the interest of the dominant oligarchy but was smart enough to recognize that its form and substance had to accommodate itself in the age of democracy. It too became a reformist party—implementing many of the proposals earlier advanced by the PLP.

Bermuda’s democratic shell became modern by the 1970s, with responsible government, necessary social reforms and a robust party system. As Opposition the PLP continued to call for reforms within the existing political framework and held true to the cause of labour. For its part the UBP as governing party essentially maintained free-enterprise capitalism, with minimum state intervention. Adam Smith would have been proud. Both parties, then, retained a commitment to the established political structure. The difference is that the UBP was more conservative and business-friendly, the PLP reformist and labour-focused, wanting to create capitalism with a more human face.

Electorally, the UBP held power through a winning alliance of the white vote—en masse—alongside the conservative black vote. The PLP languished in opposition with its strategy: focusing on black voters and ignoring the class dimension to politics. The apparent contradiction for the labour-focused PLP lies in the fact that the party seemed to equate workers with blacks. The language of their successive campaigns, then, merely conflated the struggle for racial progress with the quest for greater workers’ rights.

Not winning any election since democracy was won in the 1960s was a compelling reason for the PLP to re-think its strategy, its platform and its vision. This would come in the 1990s under the erudite leadership of the late Frederick Wade. Under the guidance of this former teacher and lawyer, the PLP began to re-adjust its strategy and focus on devising a winning electoral strategy. Essential components of this strategy included the following: 1. Proper fund raising, to ensure monies to actually underwrite a strong message  2. Eliminate the race rhetoric of members that only served to dissuade both conservative blacks and whites.  3. Engage the business community to show the party was for everyone, while not forgetting its labour backbone 4. Engage conservative black voters. And all this while remaining true to the reformist tradition of the party founders. It is this new vision and direction for the party—carried on by Jennifer Smith—that gave the PLP sufficient mileage to win both the 1998 and 2003 elections.

Having been in power for 34 years—1964-1998—the UBP suffered an inevitable decline, fuelled by both arrogance and complacency. It today has projected itself as the reformist party as is seeks to reconnect with voters its has now lost favour with. Its recent prouncements regarding free and elevated services for seniors, young people and those seeking affordable accommodation positions this party as one seeking a stronger connection with the man and woman on the street, something new for a party that has historically been a party of business. What this tells voters is that ideology is significantly less compelling than projecting the right message to win key votes.

At a time when there is tremendous concern about precisely the issues the UBP is offering policy proposal, the PLP will be compelled to respond. Their platform is not out as yet, but if the current focus of policy is an indication, we should expect to see a strong focus on new proposals regarding education, housing, health and young people. As far as the public is concerned these policies need to be distinct from what currently prevails if only because there is a sense not enough is being done now.

As the election pace picks up expect to see both parties positioning themselves as the logical choice for voters. One of the key reasons voters will select any specific candidate and party will have to do with the overall party positions on issues important to them. Of course, current polls point to voters embracing the PLP vision to a greater extent than that of the UBP. But that is today. As many politicians already know even a day in politics can be very long and pregnant with uncertainty.

  

Copyright © 2006 MediaCom  ::   About Us   ::   Contact Us   ::   Privacy   ::   Home