IN this segment, we will explore the various impacts if The Bahamas became a Republic, and moved away from a constitutional parliamentary democracy. This discussion follows Barbados departing from being an independent dominion, in which the Queen acted as head of state as represented by a governor-general. The conversation is a complex one, offering split views on whether The Bahamas and other countries in the Commonwealth (Canada, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize, Solomon Islands, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada, St Kitts & Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda and Tuvalu) would truly benefit from this move.

The British Empire has played a significant role in shaping laws, customs, beliefs and knowledge for many island states such as The Bahamas. British colonisation in The Bahamas dates to as early as the 18th century. But in 1973, The Bahamas became an independent nation allowing for economic and social independence. Despite still recognising the British monarchy as head of state, it has no real power within Bahamian borders. While the matter at hand seems to be as simple as cutting the umbilical cord, it is far from that. There are several aspects to consider on how this move would impact the structure of governance, democratic values, philosophical issues and foreign relations.

What do you think?

Many persons who wish to remove the Queen as head of state often question if the role is practical, and if it socially and economically benefits Bahamians. There is also the belief that without the Queen, The Bahamas would be in economic ruin - and the country at a total loss - due to some extreme form of dependency for financial, military and humanitarian aid. As an easy let down for those who believe this, it is safe to say that The Bahamas had - and still has - its fair share of economic and social woes, regardless of whether the Queen exists as head of state. There has also been the discussion of what the colonial era did for Bahamian society in terms of improving education standards, infrastructure systems and providing stability in the form of security for investors to live and work. But, as more Bahamians become educated and wealthier, social constructs as a result of that age are being challenged. For instance, removing indigenous roots and reforming it into a version that fits a particular society does not seem to be appealing to everyone. On the other hand, the colonial era served a purpose in allowing some Bahamians more opportunities to access land, education, money and power. But, even in the present day, most Bahamians still do not have access, or the means, to create generational wealth and therefore the question still stands: Is leaving behind colonial history a matter of practicality or is it sentimental?

Leaving colonial history behind

There is no doubt that the colonial age had its benefits in terms of economic prosperity and shaping the present-day revenue engines we know: Tourism and financial services. But with prosperity came an unequal divide of wealth for Bahamians and residents. It became evident to political trailblazers such as Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling that Bahamians of African descent were benefiting the least from economic prosperity in The Bahamas. In 1953, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was formed, and the party advocated for “stricter government control of the economy, increasing Bahamian ownership of business enterprises and the replacement of foreign workers by Bahamians.” Like many governments seeking independence, this was pinned to the realities of colonial legacies.

A good example was the rule of former Zimbabwean president, the late Robert Mugabe, who was once a celebrated hero to many os his citizens as he led the country into independence from an era of colonial rule that had an indisputable reputation for racism and discrimination. The country once known as Southern Rhodesia became the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1980. But despite its independence, Zimbabwe’s outlook as a once-prosperous country became bleak under Mugabe’s leadership as years went by. Some may argue that Zimbabwe would have been better under British rule, but history tells another version. Chigudu (2021), a professor who grew up in Zimbabwe, wrote about his knowledge and experience on the state of colonialism. He wrote: “Racial segregation in Rhodesia, where 250,000 white people, barely 3 percent of the population, had usurped more than half of the country’s agricultural land and owned almost all its commerce and industry. Black people were denied the franchise, their movements were controlled by a punitive internal passport system, and they died at heinous rates from chronic malnutrition, high infant mortality and limited access to basic health services.”

While Mugabe accomplished a great milestone for his country, his legacy became tarnished by corruption and power grabs. He generally blamed Zimbabwe’s problems on the history of colonialism. However, his legacy boils down to how he treated the people of Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans demanded a judicial system that was truly independent and held all politicians accountable, but Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party continues to rule - as it has since 1980 - and has never been voted out since then. Had there been consistent and transparent leadership, the country’s economy had an opportunity to flourish outside of colonialism, but carrying out the vision of a truly independent nation is more difficult to put into action.

Government structure

The constitution of The Bahamas is based on the Westminster model: Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II; the executive branch; the legislative branch; and the judicial branch. As a member of the Commonwealth of nations, The Bahamas recognises Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. The Governor-General is Her Majesty’s representative in The Bahamas, and constitutes a symbol of the nation’s unity. This leaves the question: “What happens to the judicial system if we were to become a Republic?” One option is to shift from the parliamentary system to a semi-presidential system, allowing for shared powers between the president (head of state) and the Prime Minister (head of government). Another option is to adopt a fully Republican government in which the president serves as the head of government and state. Either option must ensure that progress and stability is maintained.

Another thought relates to what will become of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council is the highest court for The Bahamas. It sits in England to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal. In 2005, Barbados dropped the London-based Privy Council and chose the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice as its final court of appeal. The Bahamas may also choose to make this step towards distancing itself from the monarchy. However, removing this layer of advisory from the legal system calls for more transparency and accountability locally.

Stability

One of the questions that remains a priority in this matter is that, if we remove the Queen, does this damage diplomatic stability for The Bahamas? Essentially, some believe that dropping the Queen may be bad for business. But there is no need to place doubt on what our country can achieve without the presence of a monarchy. Amid our fair share of economic woes, the nation has also achieved several milestones with crypto technologies, digital currencies, telecommunications, information and communications technologies (ICTs) and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). For a small island developing state, The Bahamas also holds diplomatic relationships with several major nations and continues to attract small to large-scale investors. How many investors in those fields choose to do business with us because the Queen is head of state? I am not sure. But what is certain is that investors and visitors will come to our shores based on our ability to offer competitive consumables, wages, labour skills and other factors that feed into a value-for-money equation.

Conclusion

In closing, it is my opinion that the Queen should be removed as the ceremonial head of state, and government laws and institutions would not rely upon her to exist. In theory, the law is protected and headed by the head of state. Therefore, removing the Queen from this position speaks to the movement towards a modern democracy, and allows the opportunity for a Bahamian to take on the position as head of state.

For those that argue in favour of keeping the Queen from a sentimental point of view, it is important to remember the cultural significance of the monarchy does not simply go away after 325 years of British rule. But it is time to create an identity for The Bahamas that is outside of an era that no longer holds significance or responsibility to our growth as a nation.