Benefits of 2-party system

| 04/11/2011

The two-party system in Cayman started over a decade ago and today there is still considerable debate as to its necessity. Many of us remember the “good old days” when we simply had elected officials lumped into the overall Executive Council. However, it was impossible to expect that Cayman politics was going to stay that way. 

Wemay reminisce about our innocent youth, but we are never going to get it back. The two-party system is here to stay.

The reason the two-party system exists in human affairs seems to stem from human nature itself. In whatever social-political arena we examine, the people in them fall into two broad categories. For sake of simplicity we call them “liberal” and “conservative.” Everywhere we look in the broad spectrum of humanity, people are divided into these two categories. Everyone we know is either a conservative or a liberal. In actual fact, this seems to be decided at a very early age in our life. It is difficult, if not impossible, to change one’s mind-set. You are either left or right. You are either liberal or conservative.

For example, in Cayman, we have UDP (liberals) and PPM (conservatives). American politics is also divided between liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans.) Despite the monarchy, English politics is also divided between political parties that are clearly liberal and conservative. In the US, news agencies (despite their claims of “objectivity”) are divided between liberal and conservative: CNN is liberal, and Fox is conservative. This is clear as day. In Cayman, radio stations (as evidenced by their talk-shows) are also divided between liberal and conservative. Even in our immediate families, we see this divide.  No matter where we look in the world, the divide between liberal and conservative exists.

Of course there is the minority “independent” viewpoint. There are some people who do not like to be categorized and will say, “I am liberal when it comes to social issues, but fiscally, I am conservative.” Be that as it may, this “independent” person can nevertheless be categorized as a liberal or conservative. And usually, it’s how you view things socially and /or how you vote. We can hide from labels all we want, but the truth is you can be categorized. You are either on the “left” or on the “right.” 

Now why exactly is the two-party system inherent in human nature, and what are its benefits? There seems to be a simple answer. Generally speaking, liberal minded people are concerned more with the future, progress. Conservatives are usually concerned more with the past, tradition. (I said “generally speaking.”) A balance is needed between these two viewpoints. If all one did was focus on the future, without sufficient attention to the past, there would be danger of cutting oneself off from continuity. A tree without roots becomes unplanted very quickly. On the other hand, the danger of focusing on the past, without sufficient attention to the future, is that it would stunt growth. What good are the roots of a tree that bear no fruit?

The future mustbe balanced by the past, and the past must be balanced by the future. In other words, liberals and conservatives both need each other. Both parties are necessary for the advancement of society. We learn this concept of balance in debate class where two opposing viewpoints are formed to argue a topic. One side argues in favour of one perspective, and the other side argues in favour of the opposite. The reason this is done is so that a higher understanding of the topic can be achieved. If everyone believed the same thing, how would we advance in knowledge? It takes opposite viewpoints to advance human knowledge and society. This is called “dialectic.” It’s what we mean when we say “looking at both sides of the coin” or “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.” And so there is no such thing as one viewpoint being more correct than the other. If you subscribe to the UDP, this does not mean that the PPM is wrong. And if you subscribe to the PPM, this does not mean that the UDP is wrong.

And so it is useless to call for the de-establishment of the two-party system. What is really important is to establish a proper playing field so that both parties can properly expound their viewpoint with the necessary counter-balance. We must realize that members of the opposition are integral to the advancement of Cayman’s society. People with different political viewpoints from you deserve your respect. It is very likely that you can, and will, learn something from a viewpoint you do not subscribe to.

As always, there is religious confirmation of this. In Israel 2000 years ago, the Pharisees were liberals and Sadducees conservatives. The Pharisees were more lax on Jewish customs, whereas the Sadducees held tight to Jewish law. Jesus’ apostles were also divided between liberal and conservative. St Paul and St Peter fought bitterly about their opposite viewpoints. When Christianity began to spread to the Gentile world, St Peter (the conservative) did not want to do away with Jewish customs. St Paul (the liberal) said that those traditions were no longer necessary (Galatians 2: 11 – 14.) Jesus Himself chose both liberals and conservatives to spread His Church. Surely this confirms for us the necessity of having two parties in Cayman. Christ, in whom all things converge, is both conservative and liberal, which is why He could break the law if He wanted (Mark 2: 23 – 28), while at the same time recommend his followers to adhere to it (Matthew 23: 2 – 3).

I am not in the LA on a day-to-day basis, so I cannot say for sure, but from the outside it often seems that the two parties lack respect for each other, and for the most part seem intent on destroying one another’s personalities. This shows a lack of respect and understanding of the raison d’être of the two party system. From such derisive division, how can we expect unity in the Cayman Islands?

There must be acceptance and open communication between both sides. Recognize that both parties are necessary for the advancement of the Cayman Islands. St Peter and St Paul did not share the same views, but they came to an agreement because they had the same common goal: Christ. In the same way, PPM and UDP do not have to share the same views, but they must come to agreements from time to time for sake of their common goal: Cayman.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    A good read, Badir. 

    I get what you are saying and I think (if I may) the point of what I understood is that there are two seperate parties, with seperate beliefs of how things should be done in the Cayman Islands and for the Caymanian People.  Regardless of who is elected in, there should be a balance and, rightly, instead of bashing the charater of the other person – discuss viewpoints whether opposing.  After all, it is for the good of everyone and we do need each other.

    Badir, your writings to lend for a different viewpoint on topics. 

  2. Just Commentin' says:

    Uh…Badir, the next time I need to completely escape from reality, can I have some of what you been drinkin' ? Apparent it is some verrryyy good stuff!

    You hit the "FAIL" button in trying to forge your point out of thin air in suggesting that the two-party political system is the natural order of things and here to stay. Rubbish! Tripe! That is not a supportable hypothesis at all.

    If we accept the labels "liberal" and "conservative" as natural attributes of the human psyche, then, the population posessing such attributes would be distributed along the "Bell Curve" – the greater number of those in the sample population fall somewhere in the middle of the curve. That is the natural order of things.

    So what should this mean to you, Badir? Ok, let's take you to school: You seem to be trying to conceptualise the spectrum of political ideologies in a linear manner rather than a proper distributive model; the majority of people who you so ardently desire to label as either Liberal or Conservative actually fall somewhere in the middle hump of the curve. This brings us to another label that you somehow missed entirely: "Moderate". How did you miss this very important component of the ideological spectrum? In the natural order of things (if we must have labels), in political viewpoints people tend to bunch in the middle of a Bell Curve model – closer to being under the label marked Moderate than the two extremes. Whether they identify themselves as such is another matter. The oft touted 40/20/40 voter distribution in American elections gives us a clear insight into how this plays out in real life: 80% of voters vote 40%/40% along strict party lines, but the centre 20% of ideologically moderate voters usually decide national elections.

    The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are rather arbitrary labels that are quite poorly defined and may vary on an individual and collective basis according to the social, political, and psychometric criteria used. In other words, the measure decides the label. In an advanced country with a two-party system the opposing parties use state-of-the-art marketing and psychological tactics to ensure their constituents do not stray into giving third parties or break-away ideologies any numbers.

    Relating to politics, the terms Liberal and Conservative are generally ex post facto definitions attached to people who choose to form an affinity with one major party or another within the antiquated and cumbersome framework of a divisive and contentious two-party political model. (Such as what currently exits here.)   A political system comprising just two parties on opposite sides of the spectrum is a construct that is almost by definition bound to cause division and strife. Even within the two factions there would exist a Bell Curve distribution of ideologies, so political infighting is a given. So what is the benefit to that?

    A two-party system usually emerges in a country in cases where the social and legal framework (the "constitution") nurture the divisions. Here, we made the tragic and costly mistake of prematurely embeddinga two-party system in our constitution before a prudent trial of time gave us confirmation that such a divisive framework was a beneficial model. So far, and contrary to your labelling the two-party system as "beneficial", the two-party system has brought increased division and strife without a proportional return of benefits. We failed to see the danger of blindly accepting two-party politics as a condition of electoral democracy and we are paying the price.

    Contrary to what is actually happening in the world you seem to think that the two-party system is somehow inevitable and the only way to go. You are simply wrong. In another of the world's successful financial centres, Jersey, independent politicians are the dominant force. An ever-growing number of countries in the world have some form of multi-party system; a good number of two-party systems have either given way or are in the process of giving way to a multi-party model. Why? Because people want and need a choice. I am sure there were myopic people like you in these countries saying that the two-party system is "here to stay". Guess what? That ain't necessarily so!

    You have labelled our two-party system as having "benefits", so, come now, Badir: show us the benefits! So far all you have done is to give us paltry reasons why two-party systems exist, but you have absolutely failed to name the benefits we have reaped for having a two-party system.

    How and why Caymanians tolerate a lack of choice in the political arena that they would not accept in other areas of life is a distressing commentary on our society. Imagine having only two models of automobiles to choose from? Then again, around here maybe that would be ok, we are apparently not a very choosy or demanding people and it seems any old thing will do for us.

    You wrote that "A balance is needed…"; I agree, however, I shall suggest to you that the "balance" does not lay in giving equal importance or consideration to the extremes – the extremes will never see eye to eye. Thinking they can and will is a fairytale (or the stuff of "too much Happy Hour"). The balance exists where it always has existed: in the moderate centre, among those who choose not to blindly follow the two-party extremes.

    Human personalities and political philosophies fall into a broad spectrum; trying to squeeze a diverse spectrum of human ideologies into just two boxes –  Liberal as opposed to Conservative, or, PPM versus UDP – is what is unnatural!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Party politcs are just another word for corruption!!! KEEP IT OUT OF THIS ISLAND!

  4. Libertarian says:

    Did you say –



  5. anonymous says:

    Bananas are Concervative and Breadfruits are actually Liberals. Eat well Badir, eat well.

  6. Tru Tru says:

    There are no parties in the Cayman Islands. They are just groups.

  7. Zone Stryker says:

    I have never heard such a load of crap in my life. Badir, you need to get a life. If you want to get down and dirty with the Bible, then put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes because you won’t like what I am going to tell you. Jesus made a clear distinction between 2 factions and they were simply these, God and Money.

    There is no middle ground. Your lukewarm interpretation of the Word of God does not bode well for your eternal destiny. Most of us on this planet are trying to force God to accept our embrace of the broad road that leads to destruction, but there has always been a remnant that have been willing to accept the narrow, unpopular road that leads to life. Choose God, choose life. Thumbs up for Jesus. Thumbs down for the devil.

  8. Just Askin' says:

    Is this a roast? I wanna play too.

  9. huh? says:



    it is not correct to try to categorize the PPM and UDP into such definitive groups. These two parties have not yet declared their underlying philosophies and probably never will given the size of our population. The philosophical position of our people changes like the wind! we could be conservative one day and liberal the next depending on the topic of the day. there are not enough full-time liberals and full-time conservatives to keep either party supplied with full-time members. So what will happen is the "mission" of the parties will unofficially change depending on the mood of the people each election. This time it may be that the party with business minded ruthless financial principles and cost cutting policies will win and next election when the economy is doing better the mood will shift to implementing better social programs, looking after the seamen and elderly etc. Think about what has happened recently. the first UDP government was all about the people and could be described as liberal, they gave out money like they were printing it themselves. This UDP government is all about cost cutting, fixing the economy, stimulating investment and local business, pandering to expats, ignoring immigration violations for the sake of bringing in skilled labor etc… you see the trend ? no party is going to define itself permanently because the population is small and the collective mood shifts too often…

  10. Anonymous says:

    I quote from a song from the comic opera "Iolanthe" with words by W.S. Gilbert

    "When all nightlong a chap remains, on sentry-go to chase monotony

    He exercises of his brains that is, assuming that he's got any

    Though never nurtured in the lap, of luxury, yet I admonish you

    I am an intellectual chap, and think of things that would astonish you.

    I often think its comical, fa-la-la-la, fa la-la-la

    How nature always does contrive, fa-la-la…

    That every boy and every gal thats born into the world alive

    Is either a little liberal, or else a little conservative

    Fa-la-la-la etc!


    Thanks for the laugh: sorry you brought in the biblical quotations, though. There is no "left or "right" political party here. They are both of the "right": the ultra right at that. Did you not know that liberal means "communist" to most of our fellow citizens? There is no political philosophy to compare the UDP from the PPM. The only difference is that one party has a dominant politician: you either support him or you don't.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I had to stop reading at the beginnning of the 3rd paragraph. I couldn't pay attention when you start using the US and UK as examples.

    We are a speck of sand!!! Quit comparing us to large nations!

    • Loopy Lou says:

      Or to nations at all, given this isn't one.

      • Anonymous says:
        Cayman is a nation according to this common definition:
        "people in land under single government: a community of people or peoples living in a defined territory and organized under a single government".
        I think you may be confusing "nation" with "sovereign state". They overlap but are not the same.   
  12. Anonymous says:

    PS please lets not get into religion and politics.  Religious beliefs have been the cause of many wars and many lives lost over the times, with various groups not liking what the other group or individual believes.  It is when religion trickles into politics that politics start causing the same kind of problems that religion does  – marginalizing people, extreme beliefs resulting in persecution of others for not believing in what the ruling party believes, delusional positions on issues with no basis in fact…etc etc

  13. Anonymous says:

    The difficulty with comparing Liberal and Conservative with UDP and PPM is that the two "parties" in Cayman have consistently shown us that they have no ideology, they have no defined beliefs and their stance on the various issues of the day changes with the wind which is contrary to what happens in the UK and North America where each of the parties do have liberal or conservative platforms.  Trust me these parties here are not that deep at all, not at all.   In Cayman people vote for personalities not parties. It is for this reason that the one man one vote system is better suited to Cayman politics and to Cayman voters. 

  14. Anonymous says:

    The UDP & PPM haven't yet matured into clear political philosophicies so much is still based upon the personalities of their leadership or tribal politics if you prefer.

    I also was surprised when you classified the UDP as liberal as I would have thought of them as conservative and the PPM are more liberal government and grand spending plans.

    Until there is a clear definition between the parties and they define themselves with some clarity and honesty then the political party system will remain a confused mess.

    And lets not forget the liberal party which has no identity beyond what Ezzard believes for that day in the wilds of North Side.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Certainly the PPM values tradition but does valuing tradition make them conservative? I think not.

    The PPM values education, small business development, protection of the environment (usually), government accountability, freedom of information, freedom of speech, social development, development of public infrastructure, and the well-being of everyone. These values closely align with the American Liberals/Democrats

    The UDP value traditional Christianity, big business, any development project (oil refinery), looks out for the well-being of the wealthy, and have a general "eat or get eaten" attitude. These values seem to align closely with the American Conservatives/Republicans.


    Though I disagree with their conclusion, I also agree with part of what another poster said, "There is absolutely no reason why we could not have two entirely different parties named "Corrupt" and "Not Corrupt" or even a third party called "Lets make a Deal" or "Make me a Condo deal I can't refuse". It's obvious to me that the UDP is "Corrupt" while the PPM is "Not Corrupt"  and the majority of the so called independants fit nicely in to "Lets make a Deal" or "Make me a Condo deal I can't refuse". 

    PPM are not perfect, but they'll keep getting my vote as long as they continue looking out for the well-being of all people and remain uncorrupt. Better than "Corrupt" or "Lets make a Deal" .

    • Caymanian and Proud of It says:

      Did I really read that you are saying the UDP values traditional Christianity.  HOGWASH>  XXXX  There is no equality in the LA.  The majority is   solidly UDP and they vote blindly in support of whatever their premier says.  Tell me what sort of government that is.  The idiots have even tried to tout independence.  That isthe biggest, most idiotic suggestion I have ever read.  The amount of taxation we would then be hit with is frightening.  Please people, we are three tiny islands and can no more support independence than "The beautiful by nature Turks and Caicos islands".

  16. Anonymous says:

    Whilst a balance is needed, the two party system does not work in Cayman because the  voting population ist too small and therefore many people feel caught in the trap of having to vote for either one or the other, which results that people do not necessarily vote for the best man or woman for the job – they simply vote for what they believe to be the lesser evil!

    If we have a party system, we need a mulit-party system (which is clearly challenging for a small country like Cayman) because at least then you force people from different backgrounds with different opinions and believes to come together and find a solution acceptable and in the best interest for all. A two party system just results in one bullying the other.

    Tell me why are we looking at the USA system as an example? Why not look to Finland or Germany's party system as an example? 

    • Anonymous says:

      In the UK you always vote for the lesser evil, not on personality but for which party you want to lead the country.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I find your classification of the political parties here as odd. Another poster noted that the UDP is far closer to conservative parties in the US in regards to their focus on big business and the upper-class, whereas the PPM comes closer to liberals in mentality. However, across a broader view of the parties, those similarities fall apart and we’re left with little concrete ideology from either side. One could see that the PPM tends to focus on gov’t accountability and public infrastructural development and the UDP on promoting private investments (that’s not the say they’re 100% effective at it, or even do so responsibly).
    In truth, the political parties here ate more of personality than ideology. Perhaps this was less so previously, I cannot speak to that having not been as civilly aware then as I am now. Currently, the parties identify themselves largely as counterpoints to each other, with a nearly complete disregard for political beliefs or foundation. I would venture that the UDP is defined by its leader and the PPM as in absolute opposition to the same. It’s not to say the PPM doesn’t have its own agenda, but at the moment it’s acting like-for-like in regards to political posturing.
    Every now an then there’s an abberance to this structure, such as Alden committing the PPM to one-man, one-vote. But for the most part we’re rarely given a solid ideological foundation upon which to vote for either party. It’s not a longing for the past we voters uphold in decrying the two-party system here, but frustration with the utter lack of cohesive party identity. As it stands, the two-party system you describe doesn’t exist here, and it’d be an improvement if it did. Instead we call for a third party, hoping it will be based on concrete ideas instead we can agree or disagree with, rather than yet another group of demagogues.

  18. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    There is an old adage that competition breeds efficiency. Thus, when people are given various choices from competitors it drives innovation and benefits society. However some believe contrary to this that given more choices in politics leads to discourse and inefficiency. Badir you nimbly support this by saying all of us are divided into either liberals or conservative therefore as with nothing else we only need two choices in politics  I beg to differ.

    As the two party system hasn't bred innovation nor shown any imagination in dealing with either civic or national problems, rather it has limited our choices . To whit: What if….neither party of this two party system has proven itself to be competent?  There are still choices of course. But there are only two. If you ask most voters what they do during an election in this type of system I venture to guess most would say they vote against a party rather than for another. Sick to death and tired of their proven incompetence it is truly choosing the lesser of two evils. Is that a workable system? Is it representative? Or reactionary?

    What separates democracies from dictatorships is the ability to choose. Ie. only one party as opposed to other options. In the two party system members of both parties choose a leader. And in this system if an intelligent and ethical member of the public wishes to become involved in politics they have two options of which party to join. But what if… the leader isn't intelligent or ethical? They are stuck within the boundaries of a dysfunctional party.lead by someone they don't support. And they are left with the excuse to their voters that they couldn't do anything about it. Trapped within and incapable of making changes. We hear that quite often.

    In conclusion most people feel that the two party system has run it's course. That limited choices are inefficent,patrimonial and corrupt. There has been more than enough opportunity to prove otherwise.

    And it hasn't been convincing because people, liberal, conservative, or otherwise don't want to vote byu flipping a coin. Heads you lose. Tails we win.


  19. Libertarian says:

    And thank God that Liberals and Conservatives do not have to fall under the umbrella of UDP and PPM!  They can always be Independent or choose a good ole box of squid, I say. We should never be so narrowed in our belief that these two parties represent al of Cayman. Before we had these two parties, UDP and PPM, it was Independents that were representing Cayman in the good ole days. When they were elected they had to come together in the LA and were persuaded to work together for the whole country.

    My real concern is the broken system of representational democracy we have now. There is a danger of our local politicians being used as puppets by developers and people who got the Almighty Dollar. They are elected by the people, but as soon as they become a part of the government, power gets to their heads and they start thinking about "me" and no more "them." Our politicians can be bribed and coaxed into pleasing some other folk and fulfilling their interest instead of the people's interest.  It is happening all over the world. No matter how much Anti-Corruption laws are enforced, these leaders in power can get around the laws anddisregard the people of these islands for the developers and big shots who has the monies.

    My real concern is our inadequate Constitution that has limited checks and balances, and "direct democratic provisions" where people can get involved and determine the outcomes of legislations. Sorry, but a mere referendum does not cut the cake for the Caymanian people. I say, the people need to have more political power (that is easy to execute) to remove politicians from office, make them more accountable, and even have the power to remove party leaders!  that is true democracy!  And that is why from day one, I did not vote for the Constitution we have now, because I saw a trap. Here was the trap – a document that was sugar-coated, but had no real substance. Power was not shared – and that is dangerous. The Governor can disagree with the MLA's and dissolve the LA on Her Majesty's Interest (whatever supposed interest that is). He can suspend the Constitution at will and declare a dictator by a simple decree. People, that should never be!  Why did we voted for a Constitution like that?!!!  The MLA's are suppose to represent the people 100%, but again in this same Constitution, there is nothing to ensure that "we" are represented fully.

    Here is an example of this – Right now, practically, the entire South Sound community opposes the Emerald Sound development. You have 1 developer having sway over a thousand people who oppse it. Yes, the developer has the right to develop under the law, but the law has a major loophole. What if the entire community will be adversely affected by that development, by the dredging of a canal… think of the repercussions… and the community comes out in the hundreds, protesting and oppose  the development?  No… Not in Cayman!  These protestors are told that they should shut up and stop oppossing progress!  And strangely, the MLA's are quiet about it. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the people the power to override this from happening. We find that one party is just as bad or just as useless as the other party (sorry to step on some toes)!  UDP or PPM both seem quiet about the Emerald Sound development and the majority of South Sound opposing it!  Hmmm… that is strange, but Why???  Shouldn't the members of George Town at least represent the people?  Well… they say the developer has complied with the law and is inthe right; or, is it that the developer has paid someone on the side?  We just don't know – but one thing is for sure, this Constitution has no adequate provisions therein. Apparently, you have a Constitution that looks out for the MLA's and the Governor, and not the People!  Something is definitely wrong with the distribution of power here!  The People should have more power and say – should they not???  The ministers should be serving the people – not the other way around.

    So… we can talk all we want about the two-party system and how the country is divided and changing this and that, but if there is no "systematic change" towards more "direct democratic provisions" then this socalled democracy we are in, is but a mere illusion.  At the end of the day, the puppet master gets to pull the strings and have his way. The party system is just here to distract us from what teh puppet master is doing for his own interest. The party system is a distraction, because whilst we "divide and conquer" ourselves and everybody’s attention is on personalities and tearing down personalities – and not on the issues that affect us nationally, that is exactly what the opportunists in power wants!  There is only one way to better Cayman:  Think… What do you do with apoisonous shrub?  Don't you pluck it up root and all, and plant something better???

    • The Architect says:


      Dear libertarian,

      Just because a whole lot ( 1/50 of the population) of people disagree with something that is allowed in Law does not mean that one should ignore the law. This is false.  If most people believe that the law should change, then there is a process for that as well.

      Society would be extremely chaotic if every time you get a group of people together they could have their way in the country.

      In your example, Emerald Sound met every single planning law and regulation. Its development is allowed under the law. No 'Loop hole" was used. The developer proved scientifically that the flooding and objections were mere 'opinions' without scientific fact. What should the authorities do? Break the law/make a decision based on 'opinion'? Break it based on a 'huge amount of opinions"? How many ‘opinions’ should then be required to breakthe law?

      The Chairman of the CPA said "you only need ONE good planning reason in ONE letter of objection against it" for them to consider turning it down. Not one was ever presented. We heard about wind blowing cars off the bridge because Caymanians do not know how to drive in wind, etc. The project therefore got planning permission unanimously.

      No one had any good proof that building high-end, single-family canal homes in SS would devalue the existing homes. Nor building the canal. No one could offer any proof that the canal would add to the flooding. Of course it does not- computer models showed that. SS flooded before ES and will flood again. Ivan's main flood water in SS actually came in from Tropical Gardens, out of the North Sound. 

      The idea that the size of the 'group' has anything to do with right or wrong is nonsense. We need to follow the laws OR use the 'group' to pass new laws that do not allow such a development. That is the way of civil societies. The other way is simply "mob rule" and that my friend is really dangerous if you are on the wrong side of the mob at any one time.

      "People power" is great if used effectively and civilly. I am all for democracy and freedom of speech but not ‘mob rule’. I suspect the reason you do not hear from the MLAs is that they believe in "law over mob" as well.

      • Anonymous says:

        "I suspect the reason you do not hear from the MLAs is that they believe in 'law over mob' as well." – You give them too much credit.  They advocate 'developers' or quick cash over citenzenry. 

        The board's are largely self serving, or popular belief says they are(which is what matters).  XXXXX

      • Libertarian says:

        Architect, I am not suggesting or advocating that people break the law!  Have you read any script where I have made such assertions?  I think not. Nice try.

        You said, "If most people believe that the law should change, then there is a process for that as well." Of course, who wouldn't deny process!  Who said that process should be denied?  The whole purpose of people protesting against certain laws, is to ensure that change occurs by due process, and that is democracy – the right to protest, is it not?   

        You also said, "I suspect the reason you do not hear from the MLAs is that they believe in 'law over mob' as well."  Lol… sorry I had to laugh, because you show your true colors. For you to call the people of South Sound a mob, is quite frankly, rediculous!

        The underlying message I get from you, only proves to me that you are against freedom of speech and expression. You expect the people of South Sound to not protest, sit down, be quiet, hope, and wait for some process at the politicians own timing and advantage. That again, quite frankly, is rediculous!  But nice try 🙂 


    • Anonymous says:

      emerald sound…zzzz….you lose ur argument by bring ing up this again and again…..

      this project went through a strict palnning process like anywhere else in the world…. and was APPROVED!!!!!….move on!

  20. Absurdistani says:

    > CNN is liberal, and Fox is conservative.



  21. Anonymous says:

    We're not independent so the party system is just a distraction. We're duty bound to follow any directives given to us by the UK. It's easy to get caught up in the whole us versus them political game but the reality is that we don't need the party system when Cayman is the size of a town and has less than 1/2 its residents able to vote. The infrastructure put in place to sustain this is ridiculous and I call it as I see it….a bunch of people playing dress-up and fooling themselves into believing we're a real country. We're not. We're an Overseas Territory under the thumb of the UK, with a Governor to keep an eye on us and report back to his boss.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thats why British Citizen's can come and live here at will, as we are only a British Overseas Territory with its own immigration policies, and laws.

      P.S. Canada and Australia both have a governor

  22. Anonymous says:

    I am still going to vote for the SQUID even if I have to write it in.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Cayman does not have party politics. It has personality contests which are manipulated by appliance give aways,

  24. Anonymous says:

    Rubbish. The labels liberal and conservative don't mean anything herel There is absolutely no reason why we could not have two entirely different parties named "Corrupt"  and "Not Corrupt" or even a third party called "Lets make a Deal" or "Make me a Condo deal I can't  refuse". We could even have a coalition of the Corrupt Party and the "Make me a Condo deal I can't refuse" party. There is no limit to the choices we have.

    The obvious answer though is to reject the party politics that is ruining our country and to elect honestintelligent independents who are intereted in public service rather than get rich quick and then double dip on the salary and pension.

    • Anonymous says:

      "We could even have a coalition of the Corrupt Party and the "Make me a Condo deal I can't refuse" party"

      Aren't these one and the same?

  25. Watler says:

    Badir, I am sorry, but it is truly people like yourself who is misguided. Either you are misguided or you are a loyal member of one of the parties who don't care about independents and people who are intelligent. However, a nicely written article, but I notice you stress so much on the benefits, and you fail fully recognize the disadvantages of having a two-party system.

    Badir, you're still learning. Sometimes you have to look at reality and see the whole picture. Not everything is a bed of roses. The two-party system is causing division in the Cayman Islands. Since Jamaica and other Caribbean Islands adopted the system, crime, violence, and political corruption increased.

    LOL… and you have the audicity to use the Bible to justify your stance. Try History for a change. History is also truth, and history will help you to see the damage the two-party system has done to the world. Read your History book for a change.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think NOT focusing on the independants was the point. Badir is making a case for parties – the same way many others have made a case for independents.

  26. Anonymous says:

    A nice article, but I don't think the UDP/PPM fall neatly into the left/right designation.  For starters "leftist" are generally considered more in favour of unions and protection of the lower class, etc, clearly UDP tends to put more control in the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations…

    Not saying that is wrong, just that I feel UDP is more PRO-BUSINESS which is generally considered the republican viewpoint in the USA.

    • Anonymous says:

      Good point. However, PPM are more social conservatives I think. They are less likely to favour gambling casinos than the UDP.

      • Anonymous says:

        Based on a conservative moral argument or the economic argument that it largely caters to taking money from the poor?