Guest Writer

Of courage, bravery and discernment

Hot on the heels of the departure from office of Egypt’s western backed dictator and oppressor of his people (a departure that can largely be attributed to the bravery and courage of ordinary Egyptians) the Swiss Government announced that it had frozen the assets of the Mubarak family held in its jurisdiction.

As the Egyptian people (and the Tunisians and the peoples of all the other nations ruled by corrupt despotic leaders poised to follow a similar course) begin the search in earnest for the wealth of their respective nations, wealth that has been illegitimately spirited away by the corrupt ruling families and their sycophants, the gaze will inevitably turn on jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands.

Truthfully the focus should, in the main, be directed on the City of London, Wall Street and their masters. It is those locales and the select band of the new global elite that inhabit and control them who are the primary beneficiaries of the pillage of the wealth of underdeveloped nations.

However, jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, purveyors of the vehicles (trusts, secretive hedge funds, offshore companies) that would have been at the centre of the process of facilitation of the export of the wealth that rightfully should have been utilized in the improvement of the quality of life of sad and destitute citizens, can hardly expect to escape the spotlight.

As with the BCCI scandal, the Enron fraud, the Madoff rip off, the sub-prime mortgage con game, we can expect the self-righteous western media to find much fodder in the facilitation process we so willingly and proudly peddle.

As always once the buckets of opprobrium are poured upon us, our own elite (the Cayman Finance types), arguably the sole local beneficiaries of this inglorious enterprise, will respond with righteous indignation.

We the ordinary people will yet again be left with the reality that in response to the moans of our elite, our Government will be forced to hurriedly divert already scarce public financial resources (resources urgently required to fight crime and stimulate employment) to pay the smooth talking PR men in New York, Washington and London to burnish our yet again tarnished reputation.

The usual suspects can be expected to trot out to justify such diversion of funding and focus on the grounds of the importance of the financial industry for our well being.

When the history of the second decade of the 21st Century is written, it will undoubtedly be replete with references to the bravery, courage and discernment of ordinary Egyptian people.

One can only dream that all ordinary people were Egyptians of early 2011.

Continue Reading

Online news media and social networking

As we have all seen in the international news recently, real time news media and online news, coupled with social networking like FaceBook and Twitter is changing the world. Online news in the Cayman Islands is changing the way we see our politicians. Less than two decades ago we had the coconut telegraph and the Marl Road. If you hadn’t heard a rumor by 10:00am, start one and stories traveling the Marl Road could change content completely from West Bay to George Town.

Knowing a politician or someone in government became a must and politicians pressuring the print media and private sector with bullying and intimidation along with retribution, in my opinion, is a stain in Cayman’s history. There are varied opinions about Desmond Seales’ Cayman Net News but he did start the ball rolling by opening up "letters to the editor" and pressing for a position where bullying and retribution from political figures against anyone who dared to criticize was at least out in the open. 

In a very short period of time the Cayman Islands’ political landscape has changed and, in this writer’s view, not for the better. The islands had a generation of politicians for the people and the country. With ExCo we had several elected members sitting down and governing the country. The majority of the time we agreed with Miss Annie, Mr Craddock, Captain Charles and Benson, Mr Norman and Mr Truman and the people felt they had elected members working for them.

One of the worst days in Cayman’s history was when the then government voted in large salaries and benefit packages for elected officials. That was the beginning of "being a politician meant becoming a wealthy person". Along with the comfortable income and retirement came a license for conflicts of interest. In other countries it is an abuse of power that is normally not tolerated. No paper directorships, gifts, cars, partnerships, channeling business to personal companies, making cronies wealthy with inflated government contracts. You all know the list by now.

In the good times everyone seemed to tolerate the new politicians and what they felt they deserved from being an elected member.But we are now in the bad times and true leaders need to show their metal and they have fallen short and are not governing the way out of this mess. They are too used to governing mainly for themselves and a little for the people. This is one of the reasons the present government focuses on "projects" rather than non income producing issues like crime, education, health and social services. History will show, though, that one of the events that will save Cayman politically was the world economic slow down.

The party system evolved because we had to many good leaders in government. The two party system has never really worked for all the people. Mr Bush created the UPD as a vehicle for power, control, personal and political aspirations. The PPM had to be formed to try and counter what was happening. Now our political model has been morphed into a terrible situation where one man is running the country. This is not healthy for any democracy or our government and there needs to be change.

Online media and social networking will help to bring accountability, transparency and change to the Caymanian political landscape. Cayman News Service is the leader of online media and hopefully CayCompass will follow with even more objectivity. Every day hard working, interested, good frustrated people, voters, residents have been able to question, ask for answers, accountability and criticize the government in power. This is very healthy for any democracy and leads to the people being served. Look at what we have found out about the tendering system, the health care system, unbalanced government accounts, slush funds, first class junkets by elected members, benefit packages, cronyism, back room deals — the list is endless.

Mr Bush has stated that, as he calls them, "the bloggers" will ruin Cayman. The bloggers, online media, social networking information, along with open dialogue, the eradication of politician bullying, intimidation and retribution towards the private sector, freedom of the press and speech, will save the Cayman Islands from the political quagmire it is presently in.

What has happened in Egypt is dramatic and unique. The USA media calls it "The Facebook Revolution" but it is deeper than that. Young educated Egyptians want a vote, a say and freedom of speech. With the help of the media and a new way of communicating they are succeeding.

Cayman is so lucky. We have a vote and a new way to communicate as well — our online media. Power politicians will now be seeking ways to pressure the media and perhaps stall or slow down public information because information is their enemy.

We have the vote and the online vehicles to communicate. It’s time for a peaceful, informed vote for change in the Cayman Islands to leaders for the people.

"Press on Cayman!"

Continue Reading

It’s PPM time again

Folks, there’s a new dawn on the horizon for Cayman’s only genuine political party, formed for the right reasons – for love of country! Refocused, re-energized and ready to lead these islands once more. I believe I am ably qualified to speak on this matter; as most of you know, I was an integral part of the PPM administration from 2005 – 2009, and from that to this day I remain justly proud of our accomplishments, not for self but for these Cayman islands.

For us it was never about power or money, it was always for love of country.

Saturday night saw the historic event of an official change in leadership between two of my dearest friends – long before politics – two men of integrity, two statesmen. Whatever one may think of these guys as individuals, no one can argue with those characteristics that I just mentioned. Can you ask for two more critical ones in your leaders? To Kurt, I say job well done and history will be very kind to you, my friend, and these islands will forever be grateful for all you have done and will continue to do. You are a truly great leader. To Alden, I say good luck – the load will be heavy, but your shoulders have always been broad. Learn, listen and act decisively. You cannot be all things to all people, but do what’s right at all times, with a broad vision. I know your heart better than most and I know how you feel about Cayman and its people.

Of late I have taken a backward seat in the political arena for personal reasons that I care not to elaborate on in this forum, but I would like to just point out a few things that people seem to quickly forget.

The PPM was elected to lead in May 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan in late 2004. The UDP started the re-building process (albeit chaotic and, sadly, ladened with patronage) and we had the job to continue and complete this process – no mean task. Much was left to be done and much was done with the rebuilding of homes and public buildings. Mid-way through our term the global economic downturn started. Despite these two horrendous setbacks, the PPM accomplished the following, amongst many others, for these islands and its people:

New roads all over the islands, including a new access road to the Bluff in Cayman Brac – no mean feat;

new state of the art playing fields all over the islands and a new world class track at the sports complex;

new launch ramp facilities in East End, Bodden Town and George Town;

a renewed focus on agriculture and the start of the Market at the Grounds;

start of an affordable housing scheme;

a new student veterinary school at the same location;

a new female re-hab centre in Breakers;

major progress with the handling of the country’s waste and plans for a comprehensive waste management system;

plans for a national ID system that has not yet been activated;

a large budget to the RCIPS for the purpose of fighting crime locally and on our borders, with emphasis on marine patrols;

an immediate stamp out of violent crime that was occurring at the time;

increased social programmes for our elderly and indigent;

a new post office in Savannah;

start of a new vehicle licencing headquarters, now gratefully completed and operational;

a re-branded national carrier in CAL and management re-structuring;

formulation of cruise ship berthing plans;

re-building of Pedro Castle as a cultural centre;

the completion of the Turtle Farm as a tourist attraction, albeit a costly development by the previous administration – the UDP;

new sea walls in East End and beautification of that district and all others by a national committee;

comprehensive plans developed to alleviate flooding in low lying areas and especially for the Savannah gully problem;

the start of the three new high schools and hurricane shelters for these islands to cope with the growing numbers of students and their needs (expensive or not, they are needed!);

new libraries built or developed in East End, Bodden town and George Town;

the start of the new government admin building (GOAP project) to bring the many offices scattered around the capital under one roof and to save millions in rents being paid, soon to be happily and proudly opened by the current administration and our premier;

introduced real transparency in government, taking away victimisation of civil servants and others and introducing FOI legislation – a thorn in the side of the current administration as they seem to prefer secrecy (Why I ask? It’s the people’s money, not yours or PPM’s);

constitutional reform – a huge time consuming task but an important and rewarding one;

regular weekly press briefings on all that was going on within government and our future plans;

major work on the international front to deal with the many financial initiatives and threats to our jurisdiction, and at the same time promoting these islands for tourists to come and enjoy and do business.

And the list goes on, folks! Just a timely reminder, now you be the judge – all this with not a hint of patronage or corruption and abiding by all legal tendering processes. Please compare this list of accomplishments to the UDP’s almost two years in office – only so far finishing what we started and blaming us.

Yet this administration was removed from office in May 2009 by you the public. Why? Because you listened to their propaganda? Because some of you could only see the small tokens handed out through an election campaign, ridden with inaccuracies and saying we overspent and blaming us for a failing global economy? Yes, maybe we did spend a lot, but we didn’t spend on ourselves. We spent on you and this country, and we spent where many previous administrations had failed to spend to make your lives better. We were also blamed for a rollover policy that they, the UDP, developed and we had to implement. Thankfully, we reduced the break from two years to one year, as was the original case. Who remembered that?

If this is my swan song from the political arena, then so be it, but I can hold my head high and know that I was associated with the best organised group of statesmen and stateswomen these islands have ever seen – the PPM. That is no mean boast, and one that I do not make lightly, for I respect all those that have served this country previously and laud their achievements. To all those that supported us and worked so hard at the district and national levels, I say a heartfelt thank you. To those civil servants and board members that did the same, I say the same – thank you! Your country is better for it and you served well.

To my friend Al, the new leader of the PPM and next premier of the Cayman Islands, I say once more, hold fast to that which is good. You have intelligence; pray for wisdom; God will guide you. Your support will be there, just know how to harness it and use for the greater good. Embrace all.
Evil can only prevail when good men and women do nothing, and you and Arden (the Action Man) and the rest of the team will do something, of that I am certain! You have my unwavering support until I prove otherwise.

To the young people of Cayman between the ages of 20 and 35, I say take an active interest in your country and get involved. Your country needs you and your futures are at stake. We are teetering on the brink, and what we do from here will make or break these islands. Do the right thing for yourself and your country. Do not simply follow greed and corruption and short term platitudes.

God bless you and your families and these islands we all love!

For love of country!

Osborne Bodden is a former MLA for Bodden Town

Continue Reading

‘Cayman Islands pride’ bites the dust

On Wednesday evening I heard the ‘Honourable’ McKeeva Bush declare an alleged $17 surplus in the first 6 months of this financial year’s budget. On Thursday morning I received an email regarding the Cayman Islands Pride Campaign (the clean up project). This employed people for between 3 and 4 weeks in late November to mid December 2010 and was supposed to start a second phase (as it did last year) in early February 2011.

With less than a week’s notice this campaign has been cancelled by the government because it ‘does not have enough money’. Mr Bush’s much trumpeted ‘stimulus plan’ played heavily on the clean up campaign as one of the main ways that the government was helping Caymanians and putting extra money in their pockets, which would in turn be spent with local businesses. The fact that the ‘stimulus’ would only be for 3 weeks was conveniently omitted.

The Pride Campaign gives a lot more to its temporary employees than just money in their pockets for 3 weeks. It has been invaluable as a way of raising the morale of those who are unemployed and giving them a chance to obtain a decent reference for use when applying for permanent jobs. It has shown those in charge of Public Works Roadside Maintenance crews what can actually be achieved in a short space of time if you have motivated workers with responsible supervisors who do not see the work day as an opportunity to do as little as possible (although it is a great pity that this doesn’t seem to have changed to attitude of those in charge of that auspicious department).

Those who worked on the project were told that there would be a phase 2. To be told a week before it started that it will not be taking place and then in the same day to hear the Premier in a live broadcast boasting of a (alleged) $17 million dollar surplus in the budget is a slap in the face to all the Caymanians this government has time and time again said it is trying to help. The clean up campaign has a total budget of $1 million dollars across the islands. How pathetic that those with the most who are controlling these purse strings cannot see their way to pass on a little of this alleged surplus to those who have the least.

In the words of Harry Truman, ‘it’s a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose your own’. Let us hope that we don’t all one day feel the bite ofthe depression at the hands of a government unprepared to help when we need it most.

Continue Reading

People power in a democracy

There is a lot of unhappiness in this country about government. Many people are affected by the economic situation. Those who are not yet affected are worried by it. Everyone understands that we were hit by the global crisis, but there is also criticism of the previous government, the Financial Secretary, the civil service and the previous Governor. And many believe that the present government’s reaction has made things worse.

Even those who like the sound of some government projects are troubled by the way they get decided, worried by the lack of information, suspicious that self-interest or patronage is involved, upset by the row that inevitably follows in the LA and on the airwaves, doubtful that the projects will come to anything in the end, worried by the true cost and the effect on the cost of living if they do come to something. The Premier tells people not to criticize him but his words have the opposite effect. He has not earned public confidence.

The Opposition is criticized by those who think it plays a part in government decision-making, and by those who feel it should be doing more to push the government in the right direction.

The previous Governor did real harm and made himself very unpopular by his extraordinary interventions. Some suspected a plot hatched in the UK, and some still do.

The Financial Secretary received criticism for changing his tune on the state of government finances. The Attorney General has attracted criticism on several occasions, not least for failing to give effect to the Constitution. Even the Auditor General (previous) got some, though he was only trying to shine a light on government workings.

The civil service as a whole has come in for a sustained barrage of criticism, as have the police.

We, the people, have become dissatisfied, suspicious, critical of everything and everyone in government.

Why is that? Surely it is not just that it is easier now for people to vent publicly.

One explanation is simply that people have good reason to be dissatisfied, suspicious and critical. Perhaps some critics go over the top, some misunderstand the situation, some blame government for things over which it has little control, and some expect too much of ordinary mortals; but there is certainly a lot to criticize.

Another explanation is that the global crisis has given this country a jolt, as has the increase in violent crime. Even those who have not been directly affected are less confident about the country and the future. And when a country is under stress people do become critical. They are worried, afraid. This is what we do when we are worried and afraid. The economic stress should ease as the world economy gets back on its feet, and the effects feed through to our country – though our financial industry does have some other issues as well.

A third explanation is that people feel frustrated, helpless to do anything about all the bad and worrying things that are going on around them. What else can they do except complain and criticize? Elections are 4 years apart, and offer a limited choice. They do not enable voters to say what they want done or changed.

I am writing this article to suggest that we, the people, are not so helpless. We can and should do more.

Some blame politicians for the state of our government. Some blame party politics, or financial backers lurking in the shadows. Some blame the Constitution. The hard truth is that, if anyone is to blame, it is us – we, the people.

I am not just talking about the fact that we elected the politicos who now run our government. I mean that, if we do not like the way our government works, or if we do not think much of our MLAs, it is for us to do something about it. Nobody else will.

Complaining gets us nowhere. It achieves nothing. It may do harm by making others even more cynical and disillusioned about government. We need to act. To act constructively. Few of us can make a difference by ourselves. We have to get together with others who feel the same way.

Together people can achieve a lot more than they can individually.

This is not an original idea. It is as old as democracy. I expect it was said by some ancient Greek thousands of years ago, but my quote is from Edmund Burke, a member of Parliament writing in the 1700s. At that time the best that could be said about English democracy was that other countries did not have democracy at all. Government was a shambles, partly because the king still had a lot of power, partly because many of the politicos were self-seeking and corrupt. Burke wrote “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle”.

In every democracy it is up to the people to do what is needed to get the kind of government they want. If people do not like what is going on and want change, they must come together, and take effective action to make it happen. If people do nothing, they are likely to get the government they deserve. Democracy does not work well unless people get involved. It does not work well if people treat it as a spectator sport.

Certainly, democracy is not a guarantee of good efficient government. Many of the worst governments in the world are democratically elected. No constitution, however well written, guarantees good efficient government; there is always scope for power to be exercised well or badly. The UK does not guarantee us good efficient government; and we would not wish them to do so. There would be loud complaints if the UK intervened in any but the most dire circumstances.

The UK does give us personal freedom and increasing democracy, and would give us full democracy (i.e. independence) if we wanted it. The question is what we, the people, are going to do with our democracy. Will we stand on the sidelines and complain, or will we get involved and take responsibility?

When people get together to protect their own industry, they are usually described as a pressure group. We have several of those here, and they are quite effective within their limited spheres of operation. When people get together to protect the interests of their country or their community, they are usually described as a political movement. We do not have so many of them.

The strategy adopted by a political movement to achieve its goals depends on the goals and the circumstances. If it fields candidates for election, it may be described as a political party.

The expression “political party” is also used when politicos get together and share an election platform because they think that will improve their chances of getting power. I do not mean to suggest that politicos who combine in this way are bad guys. I am only pointing out that some parties are made by and for politicos. Other parties, those that embody political movements, have goals that are not simply to get power for certain politicos. The UDP is of the first kind; the PPM is of the second kind.

There have been political parties of the first kind in Cayman for a long time. Since I arrived here in 1974 the first six general elections were won by a “team” (Unity, Dignity, or National). The next election (2000) was not won by a team; and that led to instability, confrontation and public unrest as the MLAs continued to jostle for power, and the country ended up with a leader and a government that few would have chosen. The next general election was won by the PPM team; and the next by the UDP team.

This grouping of candidates before an election into teams (a.k.a. parties) is important for voters, as well as politicos. It enables voters to use their votes to choose their government.

Our form of democracy is based on the UK’s, not surprisingly. In the USA democracy is different. The most obvious difference is that US voters choose not only the district representatives who make up the legislature, but also the chief executive, the President. In the UK and Cayman voters elect district representatives only. It is left to those representatives to choose the chief executive (the Prime Minister or Premier), and he chooses the Cabinet.

On paper the UK system seems less democratic than the US system. Why don’t UK voters choose the Prime Minister? Surely the essence of democracy is that people choose their own government?

The answer is that In practice they do – because there is a party system. UK voters know before a general election whether a candidate belongs to a party, and who will become thePrime Minister if that party wins a majority of the seats in Parliament. So, if a voter wants to use his vote to get the government he thinks would be best (or least awful), he can do so.

Of course a UK voter can, if he wishes, use his vote to get the district representative he thinks would be best, and not worry about who will be the next government. Or, if there is a particular policy issue on which the voter disagrees strongly with the main parties, he may decide to use his vote to support an independent candidate or a member of a smaller party which feels the same way. It is up to the voter to decide which is more important to him – the best available representative, or the best available government, or the policy issue on which he feels strongly. Given the great power of the government to affect the life of everyone in the country, it is not surprising that UK voters seem to show more interest in choosing the government.

Without some sort of party system, UK voters would be disenfranchised. The voter would not know before the election who might turn out to be the front-runners to become Prime Minister; the voter would not know which of these front-runners would be supported by the candidates running for election in the voter’s district. So the voter would have no means of saying who he wanted as Prime Minister. The voter might well discover after the election that his representative had supported a Prime Minister of whom the voter strongly disapproved.

It is just as important in Cayman as in the UK that voters have the opportunity to use their votes to choose their government. That opportunity exists only if candidates make clear before the election who they will join with to make a team, and who they will try to make Premier. Then voters can choose between the rival teams. Otherwise voters are disenfranchised. A candidate who tells voters “leave it to me to choose the Premier” is really saying that his own political ambitions are more important than the views of his community. He is asking voters to give up a democratic right so that he should have freedom of manoeuvre.

Cayman developed a party system years ago. Elections were contested by teams. But some of us have forgotten that; and some have found it in their interests to spread the myth that the party system is new to Cayman, that party politics bring confrontation, and that before the UDP and PPM came on the scene our government was made up of independents who acted according to their individual consciences.

This is a myth. No part of it is true. Members of the old teams stuck together during their term in office, as do members of the new teams, knowing that a split would likely lead to criticism and loss of power. In both cases we may hope that there is or was a limit, that a politico would resign from Cabinet rather than support something of which he strongly disapproved.

The lesson of Cayman’s history is clear: if voters elect a slate of independents rather than a team, as happened in 2000, the MLAs continue to jostle for power, and that leads to instability and the risk of the country getting a leader and a government that few want. It also leads to increased acrimony and confrontation among the MLAs and their supporters. And it leads to a weak government (however strong its rhetoric) incapable of sustained effort because of its internal divisions on matters of policy and priorities.

It is fine to have an independent to help the Opposition keep the winning team on its toes, or to champion some particular cause. But to expect a slate of independents to put together an efficient stable government is unrealistic. As for the idea that independent MLAs who have parlayed themselves into power as the government will then act according to their consciences without influence from their colleagues in government, that is a fairy tale. The government will last only as long as its members can reach compromises with each other.

I am notsuggesting that all parties, or teams, are the same, or that all are good for the country. On the contrary, it is obvious that some parties do great harm.

The most harmful kind of party is the patronage party, in which the goal is to get power, and the understanding is that, if their politicos get power, it will be used to reward supporters. This kind of party is found in most of the truly disastrous democracies. Once a patronage party makes headway in a country, more patronage parties are likely to emerge, as people and politicos get the idea that patronage is the path to power, and the only way for ordinary people to be sure they will be able to put food on the table. This is a slippery slope with blood and ruin at the bottom.

Voters should be cautious about any party or team which is not also a political movement with real goals that go beyond getting power for certain politicos. One reason for caution is that every politico who gets power, however ethical he may be, is confronted now and then by a choice whether to do what is best for the country or what is best for his prospects of re-election. If his colleagues and his support group think power is what matters most, the odds are that the politico will succumb to temptation and make the wrong choice – wrong for the country. Difficult decisions get dodged, left to a future government. If a decision cannot be dodged, the politico flip-flops as he tries to assess the popularity of possible decisions.

Furthermore, going back to the discussion at the beginning of this article, political movements are the way in which ordinary people in a democracy can bring about change. They are a sign of a healthy democracy.

Movements differ, but in a small country such as this a movement can be organised (1) to enable people to get more information, or more reliable information, about what is going on, (2) to provide the opportunity to discuss the situation, and what needs to be done, (3) to turn the views of the movement into action by choosing suitable candidates, agreeing a manifesto, and helping to get them elected, (4) to press the government to deliver what the movement seeks. Of course a movement may wish to add to this list. For example, it may have a programme of community work, harnessing the talents and energies of its members.

As far as I know, the PPM is at present the country’s only active political movement. It came together in the dark days of 2002 and 2003. Its goals were formulated and put into the PPM constitution. We saw all too clearly the kind of government that was bad for the country, and likely to get worse unless people mobilized to stop the rot.

We wanted an end to fear, intimidation, patronage and corruption. We wanted efficient government. We wanted government to be open and accountable, not secretive. We wanted a free press, with access to government information. We wanted a government that would engage in real consultation before making big decisions, a government that would think before acting. We wanted respect for the law. We wanted no petty dictators. We wanted a government that would earn people’s trust. We wanted to encourage people to come together to hear what was going on, and to exchange views freely. We wanted to put limits on what the government of the day could do, especially as regards changing the constitution.

We also had strong views on particular policies, especially that education, training, law and order, and infrastructure had all been neglected. This neglect had damaged the country in several ways, and the damage would get worse if the neglect continued. But we saw the threat to our system of government as a central concern because, if we lost that battle, the country could kiss goodbye to real improvement in any of these other particular fields.

You could sum it up by saying that we wanted a strong, modern democracy with constitutional safeguards. In some countries that view is already so strong and prevalent that there is no need for a political movement to protect it or make it happen. But in Cayman in 2002 and 2003 that view was under attack, and it looked as if the attackers were getting the upper hand.

The country did mobilize. The movement grew huge. A PPM government was elected. It practised what it had preached. And it made good progress in bringing about lasting change, especially with the Freedom of Information Law and the new Constitution. But then came the global crisis and economic problems. With the return of a UDP team to power we see again much of what we fought against, and the UDP government wants to roll back or ignore some of our important changes. The struggle for a strong modern democracy is not over.

In 2011 the challenges facing the country are not all the same as those by which the movement was confronted and energized in 2002 and 2003. Views and priorities are naturally changing as a result. The old PPM principles remain firm but there are new things with which we must grapple collectively.

We are entering a new phase. We have a general election in two years. Not very long for a movement to do what must be done. This is the time, the opportunity, for people to get together, to make up their minds about what the country needs, and to ensure that we get it.

With a new leader (from February 12) to help re-focus and re-energise our efforts, the PPM must be like a sponge, absorbing the views, needs, and ideas of our communities, and drawing in those who will help our effort in one way or another – to stand as candidates, or shoulder some of the work, or help develop solutions, or contribute to discussions. The PPM will develop and change, but I am sure it will not give up its founding principles, because they are still vital and are still under attack.
 

Continue Reading

Education fundamentals

Having written extensively on the failing public schools in America, I have come to recognize a strong, but often politically unpopular, correlation between discipline in the classroom and successful measurable outcomes. Orderly schools with strong principals who support their teachers, coupled with high expectations for all students, consistently produce superior, often times spectacular, results.

The design of the classrooms—accompanied by clever “catch phrases” such as “cells and bells”—is largely irrelevant. An impassioned teacher and an eager student sitting on a log can constitute an effective learning environment.

Likewise, there is little correlation between the amount spent on public education and measurable results. For example, in 2007, Washington, D.C, spent $15,511 to educate one student—the third highest per pupil expenditure in the United States. And yet the District of Columbia had the lowest student achievement performance in America. New York, which topped the nation in per pupil expenditures ($17,173) in 2007 had similar dismal results. Cayman is in the top tier of countries in the world in terms of per pupil expenditures.

Put another way, the relationship between financial inputs and cognitive outputs is virtually nonexistent. Building two new gold-plated high schools in Cayman at a cost of up to $150 million should give the Caymanian people no comfort whatsoever that our students will do one whit better in terms of academic achievement.

To examine more closely the uncomfortable concept that discipline is the key factor in academic success, I set out to identify and study the most disciplined high school in America, and I found it in the Marine Military Academy (MMA) in Harlingen, Texas.

In 1965, a small group of former United States Marines—most of them drill instructors—founded a preparatory school in Harlingen, close to the border of Mexico. The Marines were concerned that America was deteriorating badly in terms of education and social norms, including drug use, crime, gang behavior, and overall antisocial behavior. They reasoned that the discipline they learned and practiced in the Marine Corp could be adapted to a classroom setting to the benefit of young students and, by proxy, the country.

With the intent of writing a book, I enrolled as a “cadet” in MMA at age 46. Most of my fellow “cadets” entered MMA at age 14.

On Day One, like my classmates, I got my head shaved in the typical Marine tradition. I lived in the dorms with these students (tape recorders rolling) and struggled to keep up with demanding school work, taxing physical workouts, hours of homework, and, by “lights-out,” sheer exhaustion. The “design” of our classrooms was vintage shoebox: four walls, traditional desks and chairs, little else.

Most readers (and professional “academicians”) would be astonished at the transformations that take place at MMA.

Once the cadets say goodbye to their parents (mothers’ tears are shed in abundance) and walk “through the door,” their lives change forever. It turns out that former U.S. Marine drill instructors are not the least bit intimidated by teenagers with surly attitudes, unruly hair, or gangsta-style dress.

After students undergo one month of “basic training” (parents are prohibited from visiting their children during this period), the parents return to campus and most cannot believe they are interacting with the same youngsters they dropped off only four weeks earlier. It’s “Yes, Ma’am,” and “No Sir,” and “May I get the door for you, Mother?”

Most importantly, 95 percent (today’s figures) of graduating seniors go on to the college or university OF THEIR CHOICE. As you might expect, these schools include Harvard, Yale, Princeton, West Point, the Naval and Air Force Academies, and other fine institutions.

Is MMA an extreme example—yes. And is MMA the correct model for every student—no. But discipline, high expectations, and hard work are the essential ingredients for academic success.

As my friend George F. Will (syndicated columnist, Pulitzer Prize winner, and ABC News correspondent) once put it, it’s mainly a matter of “meat on the seat”: Students learn what they study in direct proportion to how long they study it.
 

Continue Reading