ORIGINAL ARTICLES Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good: Attempting to Change the Constitution, 2002

Stephen B. Aranha Max Planck Institute for European Legal History1 ABSTRACT In 2014, Bahamian Prime Minister announced a constitutional referendum on gender equality. In 2002, his predecessor, , had already put a similar referendum before the electorate. Back then, the proposed amendments failed. ’ Independence Constitution imagines citizenship as limited and exclusionary. The amendments currently proposed would indeed remove some levels of discrimination contained in the citizenship provisions, but others would be retained, and some new ones may even be added. However, the discussion of these amendments is dominated by a proxy debate appealing to populist emotions. This paper seeks to analyse the amendments proposed in 2002, which marked the first attempt at constitutional reform since Bahamian Independence, as well as the process that ultimately led to defeat at the polls. The focus will be on the amendments addressing gender inequality. Questions include: how would the 2002 proposal have changed the levels of unequal access to citizenship compared to the 1973 Constitution, and how do they compare to the 2014 proposals? And, to what extent were there procedural flaws present in 2002, and to what extent did a distractionary discourse sabotage the declared goal of gender equality?

INTRODUCTION to make more fundamental changes to the Since Independence in 1973, the Constitution Constitution. So far, none have succeeded. of The Bahamas has seen only minor In 2002, towards the end of his second changes—cosmetic in nature, addressing non- consecutive term in office, then Prime entrenched provisions (Constitutional Minister Hubert Ingraham put five Commission, 2013, p. 61) These have been constitutional amendment bills to the disregarded; they certainly did not change the electorate in the country’s first ever, and thus way Bahamians think and feel about this far only, constitutional referendum. All five document, their nation, their democracy, or were rejected at the polls on February 27, even themselves. However, attempts have 2002, gaining only between 29.1% and 37.2% been undertaken or at least processes begun, of voter support (Dames, 2012).

1 Stephen B. Aranha, PhD Student, Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, Frankfurt a. M., Germany. Acknowledgments: This paper was originally presented at the Association of Caribbean Historians conference held at the College of The Bahamas in June 2015. E-mail: [email protected] APA reference: Aranha, S. B. (2016). Bahamian-ness as an exclusive good: Attempting to change the constitution, 2002. The International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 22, 16-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v22i0.258

 S. B. Aranha, 2016. Journal compilation The International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 2016 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 17

Following the failed referendum, Ingraham’s this, the latest proposal, though consisting of (FNM) also lost the four separate bills, is presented to the May 2002 general election, and later that electorate under a single common theme: same year, the new Prime Minister Perry gender equality. The Christie administration Christie, during his first term in office, thus revisits one of the subjects of the 2002 appointed a constitutional commission co- exercise. Despite being presented in a chaired by Paul Adderley and Harvey Tynes. markedly different format, the general thrust This commission published two documents: behind the bills is indeed similar to what it The Bahamas Constitution: Options for was then. This is important to note, because in Change (2003) and a Preliminary Report and 2002 Christie, then Leader of the Opposition, Provisional Recommendations (2006). A campaigned for the defeat of the bills at the second round of consultations was supposed polls. to result in a final report, but the process got While I will briefly describe the various stalled and the Adderley-Tynes Commission constitutional amendment bills of 2002 in this never completed its work (Constitutional paper, I will focus mainly on those that aimed Commission, 2013, p. 60). In 2012, upon to address the discrimination based on sex embarking on his second, non-consecutive contained within the Constitution, particularly term in office, Christie appointed a new in its citizenship provisions. I will describe constitutional commission chaired by Sean 2 the various levels of inequality that currently McWeeney, which submitted its report, exist, explain the changes a successful Report of the Constitutional Commission into referendum in 2002 would have brought a Review of The Bahamas Constitution, on the about, as well as the changes currently eve of the 40th anniversary of Bahamian proposed in those instances where there are Independence in July 2013. One year later, important differences between the 2002 and partly based on the recommendations of the 2014 proposals. I will also demonstrate that McWeeney Commission, Christie announced other levels of inequality and discrimination a constitutional referendum originally will continue to be enshrined in these scheduled for November 6, 2014. However, constitutional provisions, even if the currently the announced referendum has since been 3 proposed amendments were successful, postponed indefinitely with its four proposed meaning they would have to pass both Houses constitutional amendment bills stuck in of Parliament with the required qualified committee in the House of Assembly majority as well as being approved by a (Turnquest, 2015). simple majority of voters in a constitutional The 2002 constitutional referendum consisted referendum. of five bills addressing a variety of unrelated Out of this comparison arise several subjects: gender equality, a Teaching Service questions. Why does Christie now attempt to Commission, the office of a Parliamentary realise the kind of constitutional reform that Commissioner, the establishment of an he was instrumental in defeating while in independent Boundaries Commission, as well opposition? What lessons can be learnt from as the retirement age of judges. In contrast to the failed attempt at constitutional reform in 2002, in order to increase the chances of 2 The 2013 Constitutional Commission will be success in a future referendum aimed at referred to as the McWeeney Commission. decreasing the levels of discrimination 3 The Gender Equality Referendum was held June 7, 2016, after this paper was accepted for enshrined in the Bahamian Constitution? publication. – Ed. What other developments since 2002 might

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 18 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. impact the outcome of a constitutional relating to registration of voters and the referendum, especially one on women’s holding of elections” (Bahamas Constitution rights, in today’s Bahamas? (Amend.) (No. 2) Act, 2002, p. 4). This was Proposed Constitutional Amendments, to be done in articles 70A, 70B and 70C of 2002: An Analysis the Constitution, which were defined as new While the constitutional referendum in 2002 articles, rather than as amendments to the saw only five questions put to the electorate, existing article 70, thus circumventing the there were 10 bills seeking to amend the constitutional provision in article 54 that Constitution. One bill was withdrawn shortly would have made a referendum on this Bill a before the referendum, and four bills were not requirement. However, Bill 7, which did go to put before the voters in the referendum. The referendum, then sought to entrench these argument, which has since been repeated by new articles into the Constitution by the McWeeney Commission, was that, amending article 54 accordingly. Therefore, technically, they did not need referendum this part of the 2002 referendum was not approval (Constitutional Commission, 2013, about the creation of the office of p. 240). I posit that this, in some instances at Parliamentary Commissioner, but merely least, is a loose interpretation of the spirit of about its entrenchment after the fact. both article 54 of the Constitution, as well as Bills 3 and 4 sought to establish the office of of the Constitutional Referendum Act, which Director of Public Prosecutions, and define its requires that for any bill which “seeks to alter role, by adding new articles 92A, 92B and an Article of the Constitution specified in 92C (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 4) Article 54(2) or (3) of the Constitution … a Act, 2002), and consequently to redefine the vote shall be taken by way of a referendum functions of the Attorney-General by ...” (Constitutional Referendum Act, 1977, changing article 78 (Bahamas Constitution sec. 2(1).). (Amend.) (No. 3) Act, 2002). As neither The bills for which no referendum approval article 78 nor article 92 is entrenched in was sought were Bills 2, 3, 4 and 5. At least article 54, and as no entrenchment of the new Bills 2 and 5 addressed areas that were articles was sought, neither of these two bills already entrenched in the Constitution. went to referendum. However, due to the However, instead of altering existing articles, overall failure of the constitutional reform they proposed to create new articles without effort, none of these new articles has yet referendum approval, only to then have these become part of the Constitution, as “no day entrenched via referendum, meaning that any was appointed for these acts to come into future changes to these new articles created operation” (Constitutional Commission, 2013, without a referendum would then require one. p. 240). With Bill 10, which would have introduced a Bill 5 sought to establish a Teaching Service five-year waiting period before being eligible Commission by adding new articles 121A, to apply for spousal citizenship but granting 121B and 121C to the Constitution. The foreign spouses of Bahamians a residency and Commission’s purpose would have been to work permit in the interim, withdrawn, this advise the Governor-General “to appoint left Bills 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 going to referendum. persons to hold or act in public offices in the Bill 2 sought to establish the office of Teaching Service and to remove and to Parliamentary Commissioner “to keep the exercise disciplinary control over persons register of voters and to carry out duties holding or acting in such offices…” (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 5) Act, 2002).

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 19

Bill 6 then sought to entrench these new Opposition, … and the Deputy Chairman articles into article 54 of the Constitution; the and one other member shall be appointed current article 121 is already entrenched. As by the Governor-General, acting on the in the case of the office of Parliamentary recommendation of the Leader of the Commissioner, this then would not have been Opposition after consultation with the a consultation of the electorate about the Prime Minister… (Bahamas Constitution establishment of the Commission, but merely (Amend.) (No. 8) Act, 2002). about its entrenchment after the fact. In The fifth member would have been the addition, Bill 6 would have added a mention Parliamentary Commissioner, also “appointed of this new Commission in the entrenched by the Governor-General acting on the article 107: recommendation of the Prime Minister after A former member of the Public Service consultation with the Leader of the Commission or Teaching Service Opposition” (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Commission shall not, within a period of (No. 2) Act, 2002). However, as the five years commencing with the date on Parliamentary Commissioner was to be which he last held or acted in that office, tenured for a period of eight years (Bahamas be eligible for appointment to any office Constitution (Amend.) (No. 2) Act, 2002), it power to make appointments to which is is conceivable that the government of the day vested by this Constitution in the would not necessarily have appointed the Governor-General acting on the majority of the Commission’s members—an recommendation or in accordance with important difference in comparison to the the advice of the Public Service composition of the current Constituencies Commission. (Bahamas Independence Commission. Order, 1973, art. 107; Bahamas Finally, Bill 9 sought to increase the Constitution (Amend.) (No. 6) Act, 2002) retirement age of Supreme Court Justices This would have excluded Teaching Service from 65 years to 68 years of age, and possible Commission members from appointments extensions from 67 to 72 years by changing made by the Public Service Commission, but the entrenched articles 96 and 102 of the not from appointments made by the Teaching Constitution by way of referendum (Bahamas Service Commission itself—a noteworthy Constitution (Amend.) (No. 9) Act, 2002). construct. This completes the brief overview of what Bill 8 sought to establish a new Boundaries might be considered the “simpler” bills, each Commission to replace the existing changing no more than a few constitutional Constituencies Commission, by changing the provisions, and all addressing topics that have entrenched article 69 of the Constitution. The not seriously resurfaced in public discourse. It referendum ballot question characterised this must be noted that in the above instances, new commission as independent; however, all many of the bills were constructed, by of its members would have continued to be definition, as adding new articles to the political appointees: Constitution rather than changing its existing The Chairman and one other member of articles to circumvent the need for a the Commission shall be appointed by the referendum on them. Namely, these were Governor-General, acting on the articles 70A, 70B, 70C, 92A, 92B, 92C, recommendation of the Prime Minister 121A, 121B, and 121C. As we shall see after consultation with the Leader of the below, Bill 1, on the other hand, was

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 20 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. inconsistent with this dialectic. granting citizenship to a group of children Whereas none of the above bills were very who up to this point have no constitutional complex, Bill 1 proposed to change no fewer entitlement to Bahamian citizenship. As the than nine articles in the Constitution, namely bill also proposed to remove the marriage-bias articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26, and finally by revoking filius nullius in article 14, it 54, which entrenches the previous eight would have addressed both instances of articles. These articles of the Constitution not inequality. only govern citizenship but also spell out the Article 8 is similar to article 3(2) in that it fundamental rights and freedoms of the addresses the access to citizenship of individual. In the still operational overseas-born children, but post- Independence Constitution of 1973, these independence. Again, the 1973 Constitution provisions are unequal for men and women. grants it to the children of Bahamian fathers; In the Constitution, article 3 defines those again, because of the filius nullius rule in persons who became citizens upon article 14, this then means the overseas-born Independence on July 10, 1973. In its current children of married Bahamian men or form, paragraph 2 grants citizenship to those unmarried Bahamian mothers. Again, the overseas-born children whose fathers became proposed change was to remove the gender “or would but for his death have become” bias—and in connection with the proposed (Bahamas Independence Order, 1973, art. 3)4 changes to article 14, marriage bias—and citizens of The Bahamas. Article 3(2) thus grant the same constitutional entitlement to clearly discriminates against Bahamian citizenship to the overseas-born children of mothers—or the children of these Bahamian most Bahamian parents. This change, too, mothers. In combination with article 14, would have been retroactive, allowing however, the nature of this discrimination is children to become citizens upon the no longer as unidirectional, for article 14 commencement of the change, even if they invokes the common law principle of filius were born prior to the change. It is, however, nullius, declaring the biological father important to note that there still remains a irrelevant when determining the status of group of Bahamian parents—men or women, children born out of wedlock (Constitutional married or unmarried—excluded from passing Commission, 2013, p. 104). This then means on their citizenship to their overseas-born that article 3(2) denies citizenship to children children, and that is those who obtained their born overseas prior to Independence to either citizenship either through article 3(2) or 8 a married woman, who became a Bahamian themselves, that is, they were themselves citizen upon Independence, and her foreign overseas-born. husband, or an unmarried man, who became a The proposed 2002 amendments to articles 3 Bahamian citizen upon Independence, and a and 8 also emphasised that they would not foreign mother. The 2002 proposal would have affected the entitlement of anybody to have removed this bias, by changing the citizenship under any earlier provisions of the language from “father” to “father or mother” Constitution that have been changed. This is (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Act, 2002). important, as the change to article 9 would The bill was proposed to be retroactive, thus have been a drastic one: it was proposed that it be deleted.

4 This phrase is common throughout this Chapter Article 9 currently entitles the overseas-born of the Constitution, but for simplicity’s sake I shall children of Bahamian mothers married to omit it henceforth.

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 21 foreign husbands to be registered as citizens their Bahamian wives on or after July 10, upon reaching the age of 18 years, and while 1973. the new article 8 would have been retroactive, Apart from the various clauses defining how there remains one group of children currently Bahamian citizenship is obtained, this chapter entitled to future citizenship, but still waiting of the Constitution also addresses the possible to claim it under article 9, who would not be deprivation of such citizenship. Currently entitled to it under the new article 8. Currently Parliament may make laws to revoke the the overseas-born children of married citizenship of Bahamian citizens, except that Bahamian fathers and unmarried Bahamian of those who are citizens by virtue of articles mothers who were themselves born overseas 6 or 8 of the Constitution, that is citizens born are excluded from citizenship, but article 9 after Independence and entitled to citizenship does not define the same exclusions for at birth (Bahamas Independence Order, 1973, married Bahamian women. However, these art. 13(b).). This group’s citizenship cannot be children have to wait until they turn 18 before revoked, except in very limited cases where they can apply, and they must do so before the Governor-General has the discretionary turning 21. Without saving this constitutional right to deprive some Bahamians who are dual entitlement under article 9 for those born nationals of their citizenship (Bahamas before the change, some children would have Independence Order, 1973, art. 11). It was been, figuratively speaking, deleted from the proposed to add citizens by virtue of the waitlist. newly amended article 3A to this protected Article 5 speaks to spousal citizenship upon list (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Act, Independence. It entitles not only foreign 2002), that is, citizens born overseas prior to wives, but also foreign ex-wives and widows Independence to parents who were entitled to of husbands who became Bahamian citizens Bahamian citizenship at Independence. Yet upon Independence, to also become Bahamian citizens born in The Bahamas prior to citizens upon Independence. Here, too, the Independence would not have been amongst 2002 proposal sought to remove the gender the beneficiaries of this constitutional change. bias by allowing the foreign husbands—and In essence, this starkly contrasts with the post- ex-husbands and widowers—of wives who independence preference for ius soli, putting became Bahamian citizens upon those born prior to Independence within The Independence these same rights. It is Bahamas in a less privileged position than important to note that this article applies only those born abroad. to marriages entered into prior to The proposed change to article 13 was the Independence, so that this, too, would have only provision in this complex bill that did been a retroactive change (Bahamas not aim to address some form of gender Constitution (Amend.) Act, 2002). disparity in the current Constitution. It did not Similarly, article 10 speaks to spousal address any other form of discrimination citizenship post-independence. It currently either; rather it further expanded the entitles the foreign wives of Bahamian Constitution’s catalogue of differences. husbands to be registered as citizens. The However, the article’s highly discriminatory main difference to article 5 is that in this case, nature—it effectively creates “two legal the marriage must persist; ex-wives and classes of citizens” (Johnson, 2008, p. 60)— widows are not so entitled. Here, too, the so far has not been a topic in any discussion gender bias would have been removed for the about constitutional reform. current foreign husbands who got married to

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 22 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good.

Thus far, Bill 1 addressed the chapter on reasons for this choice of word were not citizenship, but its last provision proposed a discussed within its pages. Even though the change to article 26, which defines report’s discussion revolved wholly around discrimination in the chapter on fundamental the term “gender”, it is the word “sex” that rights and freedoms of the individual as then appears in the specific recommendation follows: for amending article 26 (Constitutional In this Article, the expression Commission, 2013, p. 23). ‘discriminatory’ means affording The McWeeney Commission further different treatment to different person recommended adding a provision to article 26 [sic] attributable wholly or mainly to their explicitly stating that despite the broadened respective descriptions by race, place of anti-discrimination criteria, laws prohibiting origin, political opinions, colour or creed same-sex marriage shall not be inconsistent whereby person [sic] of one such with the Constitution (Constitutional description are subjected to disabilities or Commission, 2013, p. 25). This restrictions to which person [sic] of recommendation was not included in the another such description are not made proposed bills. Both the administration and subject or are accorded privileges or the same Commission, which is now tasked advantages which are not accorded to with educating the Bahamian electorate about persons of another such description the four bills, can argue that the Constitution (Bahamas Independence Order, 1973, art. already exempts marriage laws from having to 26(3).). comply with the anti-discrimination The proposed change was to add the word provisions (Bahamas Independence Order, “gender” to the above list of attributes 1973, art. 26(4)(e).). As it stands, the 19th (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Act, 2002). century Matrimonial Causes Act prohibits same-sex marriage: “A marriage shall be void Proposed Constitutional Amendments, on any of the following grounds: ... that the 2002 and 2014: A Comparison parties are not respectively male and While all of the above proposals failed to find female...” (Matrimonial Causes Act (1879), the approval of voters in the 2002 referendum, sec. 21(1)(c).). The proposed constitutional 12 years later, in the summer of 2014, Christie change would therefore not void this law. tabled a set of four constitutional amendment Furthermore, the Constitution exempts laws bills in the House of Assembly, which in their “enacted or made before” Independence from combination had a similar thrust to Bill 1 of having to comply with the Constitution’s non- 2002. This time, it was declared, the discrimination clauses (Bahamas referendum would address only one aspect of Independence Order, 1973, art. 30(1)(a).). constitutional reform: the removal of gender While many opponents of the current discrimination (“PM Opens,” 2014). Only, the constitutional reform effort have tried to first victim of this renewed attempt was the derail the process by proclaiming that the term “gender”, which is not included in the Christie administration’s ulterior motive was actual bills. Instead, it has been replaced by to sneak in same-sex marriage under the guise the narrower concept and the strictly of equality between men and women, this biologically understood word, “sex” argument neglects not only the constitutional (Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Bill (No. 4), reality outlined above, but also ignores the 2014). This was a recommendation of the fact that Parliament could legalise such today McWeeney Commission’s report, but the without the need for a controversial, costly

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 23 and politically perilous referendum. them had contributed to the failed referendum The proxy discussion over same-sex marriage (Constitutional Commission, 2013, p. 63). If to defeat the constitutional guarantee of that is one reason for the different approach of gender equality is probably owed, at least in dividing the gender equality issue into several part, to developments abroad as well as to the bills, Nottage, at town hall meetings, gave influence that international media covering another reason: the McWeeney Commission them have in The Bahamas (Aranha, 2014). and the Christie administration are of the However, the attempts at mitigating these opinion that one constitutional amendment fears among many Bahamians did little to bill may not change more than one article of achieve that aim. Rather, through the the Constitution (personal communication, McWeeney Commission’s patient entertaining August 5, 2014). This is an interpretation of of the issue at town hall meetings, as well as the Constitution that is implicit, not explicit through Christie’s reference to it when first (Bahamas Independence Order, 1973, art. 54). presenting the four bills in July 2014 (“PM However, as a consequence this amounts to an Opens,” 2014), an impression is created that indirect accusation that the 2002 process was those fears are perhaps justified, even though unconstitutional; if upheld, it would also cast Christie presumably made the reference to doubt upon the constitutionality of one of the preemptively alleviate such concerns. current proposals, for the first Constitutional Amendment Bill (2014) affects both articles 8 Another major difference between the 2002 and 9 of the Constitution. While the 2002 proposals and the current proposals is the process was indeed criticised by the retroactivity of the new citizenship provisions. opposition, this criticism did not claim It is no longer a part of the plan. During town unconstitutionality of the bills themselves. hall meetings, retired Justice Rubie Nottage The opposition did try to claim (personal communication, August 5, 2014) unconstitutionality of the process, arguing that has argued on behalf of the Commission’s the referendum date of February 27, 2002 was education campaign that this is due to the fact too close to that of the upcoming general that the government simply does not know election, ultimately held on May 2, 2002. how many people would suddenly be entitled However, their argument in this regard failed to citizenship—a move deemed too risky. to gain traction (Smith, R. M., 2002, p. 1). However, it stands to reason that statisticians Christie’s main criticism of the 2002 process should be able to extrapolate a fairly accurate can be described as what he deemed a lack of estimate of that number based on data appropriate consultations with those he available to the government, such as overseas considered legitimate stakeholders— passport applications, demographic data for predominantly, the churches (Thompson, the countries from which they were made, 2012). historical figures of applications for citizenship registration under article 9, etc. Despite, or perhaps because of, the complexity of the 2002 bills, their ballot Overall, the 2002 Bill 1 would have been questions, which are a required element of more comprehensive and less exclusionary each bill (Constitutional Referendum Act , than the four 2014 bills combined (Aranha, 1977, sec. 3), were more accurate than the 2015). The McWeeney Commission recorded current proposals, where especially the first observers opining that this complexity of the bill’s ballot question would be misleading if it 2002 bills as well as the government’s failure were to remain unchanged, as it does not to adequately educate the electorate about acknowledge the existence of disqualifiers

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 24 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. that exclude parents from passing on their obvious are some shortcomings of both citizenship and instead leads the audience to proposals. believe that there exists a positive list of Firstly, because of the exclusionary nature of qualifiers that would enable them to do so; the the citizenship provisions in articles 3(2) and language suggests that this right would be the 8 of the Constitution, the reality is now, privilege of those parents who are citizens by would have remained in 2002, and will birth (Rolle-Brown, 2014). Yet while some of remain even if the current exercise were to the excluded categories, i.e. articles 3(2) and 8 succeed, that the overseas-born children even of the Constitution, do in fact describe of two Bahamian parents could be rendered citizens by birth, others who are not citizens stateless if they are born in a country that does by birth but by registration or naturalisation not have ius soli. Due to their more are not excluded. exclusionary character, the current proposals Three other differences highlight the more increase this risk, despite the McWeeney exclusionary nature of the current proposals: Commission’s recommendation to remove all while 2002 simply removed the gender bias disqualifiers from article 8 in order to ensure from the entitlement of overseas-born children that the children of all Bahamian citizens, not of Bahamian parents, spousal citizenship and only regardless of their parents’ sex but filius nullius, Christie now introduced new regardless of their parents’ place of birth, supposed safeguards to ensure that Bahamian enjoy the same rights (Constitutional citizenship remains an exclusive good—in the Commission, 2013, p. 104). first instance by expanding the list of Secondly, both in 2002 and now, the disqualifiers contained in article 8 (Bahamas government avoids the proverbial elephant in Constitution (Amend.) Bill, 2014), in the the room—the need to revisit article 7 of the second instance by erecting perceived Constitution, which speaks to children born in protections against so-called marriages of The Bahamas after independence to two non- convenience, and in the third instance by Bahamian parents, or an unmarried non- making DNA testing of unmarried fathers Bahamian mother and Bahamian father. mandatory thereby continuing a degree of Currently, they are “entitled, upon making discrimination based on marital status, for application on his [sic] attaining the age of while the married man is automatically eighteen years or within twelve months assumed to be his wife’s child’s father, the thereafter in such manner as may be unmarried couple’s word is not trustworthy prescribed, to be registered as a citizen of The enough to establish paternity (Bahamas Bahamas...” (Bahamas Independence Order, Constitution (Amend.) Bill (No. 2), 2014). 1973, art. 7) or, in short, “entitled… to be However, it must be remembered that the registered as a citizen.” This is frequently withdrawn Bill 10 of 2002 also would have obfuscated by reducing it to being merely a put somewhat stricter requirements on spousal “right to apply,” even by the Minister of citizenship, which could be interpreted as an Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred early attempt to protect against so-called Mitchell (2015), especially in the public marriages of convenience without saying so in debate around the government’s so-called the actual text. New Immigration Policy. The reality is that Those are the obvious differences. There are many of these children are here to stay, and obvious commonalities, too. Bill 1 (2002) and that our Constitution’s rendering them Bills 1 through 4 (2014) appear to share the stateless, whether de jure or de facto, as theme of gender equality. However, most minors, and due to the slow processing of

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 25 applications by the Department of the referendum was not, or at least not only, a Immigration and cabinet as young adults, too, vote on the issues at hand. Both the 2000 as disadvantages them as individuals and as well as the 2010 census show that Bahamian members of our society. This then can create women outnumber Bahamian men by parallel societies, ultimately harming the very approximately 52% to 48% in the overall society this exclusivity was designed to population of the country (Bahamas Dept. of protect. After reviewing the Constitution in its Statistics, 2002, 2012). Among the adult entirety and making countless recom- population, i.e. those eligible to vote, this mendations on virtually all aspects of the imbalance is slightly greater still. Before the document, the McWeeney Commission last general election, Ingraham announced that decided to exclude article 7 from its review, there were approximately 20,000 more and instead recommended the appointment of women registered to vote than men (Hall, another commission to further study this 2012). Given the total registration numbers subject (Constitutional Commission, 2013, for 2012, that translates into a split of roughly pp. 103-104). While Christie announced in 56% women to 44% men amongst registered 2014 that “preliminary preparations are voters.5 already underway” (“PM Opens,” 2014) to If the majority of voters are women, why then this end, no such commission has been is a vote for equal rights controversial? The appointed as yet. McWeeney Commission mentioned several The riskiest difference contained in the factors as contributing to the failed current proposals, however, is the presentation referendum in 2002: “contamination of the of separate bills in what will be a binding referendum by other political controversies; referendum. In a worst-case scenario, this the imminence of a general election; could result in increasing rather than decidedly mixed feelings among the electorate decreasing the inequality between fathers and as to the citizenship-related aspects of the mothers. Namely, if Bill 1 (2014) were to fail gender-equality issue; the complexity of the but Bill 3 (2014) were to succeed, filius bills; and the lack of public education” nullius would be abolished, and unmarried (Constitutional Commission, 2013, p. 63). Bahamian fathers would gain the right to pass However, these are in many ways connected, on Bahamian citizenship to their children rather than separate reasons. while unmarried Bahamian mothers would When the People’s Liberal Party (PLP), after consequently lose the right to pass on having voted for all of the constitutional Bahamian citizenship to their children born amendment bills in the House of Assembly, overseas. turned around, withdrew its support, and Resistance to Reform: campaigned against the amendments, it Recommendations to Avoid a Repeat became a political issue. This in turn affected Performance everything down to the public’s education While voters in 2002 were asked to decide on about the bills. an array of issues, Bill 1 and its promise of Arguably, Ingraham and the FNM gender equality, as well as its resounding rejection in the referendum is the one Bahamians seem to remember most vividly 5 Calculation based of Ingraham’s statement and today. It certainly generated the most debate voter registration numbers published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral then (Bethel, 2003, p. 72). Given Bahamian Assistance, voters’ demographics, it stands to reason that http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=31

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 26 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. underestimated the need for an educational more than a dozen clergy from different campaign, too, only announcing it less than denominations, and their opinions had been four weeks before the referendum (Smith, noted in the Constitutional Commission report February 1, 2002, p. 11). A few days later, the (2013, App. VI). Also, a public education divided political climate on the issue led him campaign was launched and announced with to decide that no funds from the public their tabling in Parliament (“PM Opens,” treasury would be spent on such a campaign, 2014). It could be argued that this was but that, because the PLP was using its party premature, as the bills are, to this date, stuck funds for a No campaign, the FNM would use in committee in the House of Assembly. This its party funds for a Yes campaign; means that they are subject to further changes government funds were to be “limited to that could have potential implications for any reproducing the bills, printing posters, and informational or educational campaign. costs associated with sponsoring the However, an educational campaign alone may referendum” (Smith, February 11, 2002, p. 1). not be sufficient to ensure that the bills pass in The unfortunate result of this decision was another referendum. The process faces several that the education on the constitutional serious challenges. Parallel to what happened amendment process then took place at party in 2002, the current process is in danger of rallies (Smith, February 26, 2002. p. 1). being politicised. Not only does the FNM However, political rallies in The Bahamas are expect Christie to apologise for campaigning neither informational nor educational, but against the 2002 referendum (Thompson, largely emotional, and they each tend to reach 2014), but Christie categorically refuses to do only one side of the political divide. Thus, at a so (Virgil, 2014). In the current political rally less than a week before the referendum, climate, with the sitting PLP government’s Ingraham made the ultimate plea: “Whoever unpopularity arguably rivalling that of the wins Wednesday’s referendum will no doubt 2002 FNM administration, but the FNM become the next government of The Bahamas. opposition being perceived as “the weakest If you give us the referendum I will give you the country has seen in decades” (Cartwright- the next government of The Bahamas” Carroll, 2016), any effort the electorate (Maycock, 2002). perceives to be part of Christie’s effort to An analysis of the media coverage of the 2002 construct his own legacy, and thus a referendum suggests that the highly popularity contest, runs the risk of being politicised nature of the referendum, and the rejected. On the other hand, the opposition unpopularity of the sitting government early may jump at any opportunity to sharpen its in 2002 when The Bahamas’ tourism sector profile. was suffering badly as a result of the 9/11 Prominent members affiliated with both major terror attacks in the United States, were the political parties are spearheading the main reasons for the No vote. I furthermore educational campaign but it nonetheless faces posit that the opposition PLP exploited this some challenges. By relying heavily on the climate, and the referendum, for the ultimate town hall format, it has, at least thus far, prize, i.e. the May 2nd general election. embraced a decidedly 20th-century approach When Christie introduced his bills in 2014, to public campaigning. Also, it has largely much of the process had already been been on the defensive. Christie himself markedly different from the 2002 process, e.g. brought up same-sex marriage in connection the McWeeney Commission had met with with the constitutional amendment bills, as if in an attempt to alleviate concerns before they

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 27 could be voiced (“PM Opens,” 2014). Since make the Bahamian public understand and then, the McWeeney Commission has been trust that, in contrast to the so-called patiently entertaining many questions on the referendum in 2013, a constitutional subject at repeated town hall meetings. referendum will be binding, that his Arguably, it could have taken a stronger administration not only would not, but could stance in categorically dismissing the matter. not, act contrary to its outcome. As a result, homophobia appears to have been, If, because of the history of the past 14 years, to some extent, validated in the debate, if only the process, the actors as well as the bills are serving as a proxy for misogyny. contaminated, then what measures might In their analysis of the public debate of the increase the chances of gender equality proposed marital rape law in 2009, Lisa becoming entrenched in the Bahamian Benjamin and Cathleen LeGrand Constitution? One possible approach would demonstrated that “unfounded beliefs, be to broaden the conversation about the unchallenged assumptions and illogical current proposals. As most of the arguments” (2012, p. 31) can effectively constitutional provisions requiring change derail legislative reform. This debate also affect the Constitution’s chapter on showed a continued strong element of citizenship, especially the status of children misogyny among shapers of Bahamian public born to Bahamian parents abroad, the public opinion, which does not bode well for a debate would gain an element of honesty if referendum on gender equality, even if, for the the proponents of change admitted more time being, the disguises of choice are directly that, yes, the changes would have homophobia and chauvinism. immigration implications. Also, framing the Another obstacle to a successful constitutional entire conversation around the very worthy referendum is the tainted legacy of the so- concept of gender equality neglects to called referendum on web-shop gaming and a acknowledge one fundamental fact: the national lottery, which was held in January citizenship provisions only indirectly 2013. Voter turnout was well below 50% discriminate against Bahamian women—and (Hainey, 2013) and the government could thus some Bahamian men—in their roles as argue that no quorum had been reached and parents. The real victims of this unequal that the gaming referendum in reality was but entitlement to Bahamian citizenship, however, a non-binding opinion poll in which the are their children, regardless of their sex. The majority of the electorate, by abstaining, key provision in the Constitution, where the declared they had no preference either way. debate is framed around gender, but could Christie prepared for such a scenario before also be framed around children’s rights, is the vote and declared “that a minority turnout article 8, which says, “A persons [sic] born would make the result ‘inconsequential’ and outside of The Bahamas … shall become a the government would have to make its own citizen … if … his father is a citizen…” judgement on the way forward” (Smith, (Bahamas Independence Order, 1973, art. 8). 2013). Nonetheless, after the vote he Clearly, the constitutional entitlement speaks promised that he would abide by the outcome to the newborn, the Bahamian parent’s sex— (Thompson, 2013). However, his and marital status—and the conditions under administration has since turned around, and which the child gains this entitlement, or is passed legislation to legalise and regulate denied it. The debate about the bills should web-shop gaming regardless (Gaming Act, therefore also include children’s rights. 2014). His administration has since failed to Another approach would be to broaden the

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 28 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. proposals themselves, and heed the advice potentially being excluded and alienated are given by the McWeeney Commission to more diverse and can include the progeny of remove all the disqualifiers contained in families without any recent immigration article 8 of the Constitution, thus making all background. Bahamian citizens and their children equally Therefore, we must ask: Why is Christie, why Bahamian. Nottage has stated that it was are we, The Bahamas, attempting to change necessary to exclude some citizens from our Constitution to enshrine gender equality? passing on citizenship to their children to And, why is this seemingly such a difficult ensure “attachment to the territory and task, with failure a distinct possibility? allegiance to the state” (R. Nottage, personal communication, September 25, 2014). Some observers have opined that Christie’s However, using a person’s place of birth, a second term in office will be about singular moment in life, as the sole criterion constructing his personal legacy (Dames, to determine this concept is arbitrary and 2014). He himself has used this term on ineffective. Furthermore, demanding citizens’ occasion (“Crime Solving,” 2014; Christie, “attachment to the territory and allegiance to 2015). However, legacy aside, other factors the state” could be viewed as a colonial legacy necessitate the appearance of movement which continues to define the persons who towards constitutional reform for gender inhabit the territory as subjects. If, as has been equality. stated, the aim of the constitutional reform In 1993, The Bahamas ratified the United exercise is to deepen our democracy (Gilbert, Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all 2013), then it could be argued instead that the forms of Discrimination against Women state owes allegiance to the citizens, who are (CEDAW). Since then, The Bahamas has the true sovereigns. If a degree of loyalty or been unable to fully comply with the attachment is to be expected of a citizen, document because of its constitutionally perhaps it ought to be to the society of fellow enshrined gender inequality, and the citizens around them, but such surely is not Committee on the Elimination of miraculously instilled in the newborn at the Discrimination against Women has repeatedly time—and by the place—of birth, that demanded constitutional and legislative singular moment in life. improvements to fully implement the CONCLUSION Convention in The Bahamas, e.g. in 2012 it After scrutinizing both the 2002 and 2014 recommended that the government: proposals for constitutional reform, we see take steps to repeal article 26(1) of the that, despite the removal of some barriers, Constitution and ensure that an explicit Bahamian-ness continues to be treated as an definition of discrimination in line with exclusive good. These exclusionary qualities article 1 of the Convention, as well as of Bahamian citizenship fail to foster provisions on the equal rights of women democratic maturity, and encourage the in line with article 2(a) of the disengagement and retreat into parallel Convention, be included in the societies of would-be citizens. As Bertin Constitution or in other appropriate Louis has shown for Haitian-Bahamians, the legislation (p. 3). state thus “produces subjects that are … or that The Bahamas “amend its Constitution unpatriotic and potentially disloyal to The and relevant domestic laws to grant Bahamian Bahamas…” (2011, p. 20). However, as I women equal rights with men regarding the have demonstrated, individuals that are

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 29 transmission of their nationality to their allow them considerable air-time. As children or to their spouses of foreign Nicolette Bethel noted about the influence and nationality” (p. 7). power of talk radio, The Bahamas is “a Not only as a party to CEDAW, but as a country where radio talk show hosts nation heavily dependent on tourism—and determine the decisions taken by government tourism targeting a predominantly Western, officials and analytical texts are relegated to North American customer base—The college classrooms or embattled conclaves of Bahamas is caught between legal spaces on academics...” (Bethel, 2000, pp. 257-258). It this issue. At least the appearance of is then not surprising that an administration movement towards equal rights is important beset by controversy, especially one that in to avoid potential negative consequences. hindsight is able to look at the political Compliance issues with CEDAW can also consequences of an earlier failed explain the narrow focus on gender in the constitutional referendum, does not appear to proposals to change the citizenship see this referendum as a priority at present. provisions, rather than an overall reform of Regardless of one’s stance on the subject of the system to create a more inclusive gender equality, observers have also noted Bahamas in general. amongst Bahamians a general reluctance to On the other hand, as we have seen, there make any changes to the Constitution. This seems to be only a limited commitment of has been linked to the false belief amongst government resources towards educating the many Bahamians that our founding fathers electorate on, and convincing them of the crafted the Constitution as “an original work benefits of such a constitutional change. of Bahamian authorship” (Johnson, 2008, p. While on the one hand The Bahamas needs to 17) when in fact the document is merely the comply with international treaties and 1973 vintage of “the Westminster Export domestic laws, on the other hand there are Model Constitution,” (Johnson, 2008, p. 18) socially widely accepted rules and handed to us by the British at Independence. conventions that may not necessarily accept Perpetuating the exclusionary qualities of women as equal to men. As has been shown Bahamian citizenship encourages the in the marital rape debate, certain religious disengagement and retreat into parallel interpretations can negatively influence public societies of would-be citizens. This refusal of attitudes in this arena (Benjamin & LeGrand, our society to be more inclusive is what 2012, p. 29). Furthermore, many Bahamians Alfred Sears predicted could become “a threat interpret the call in the Constitution’s to the domestic stability of The Bahamas” preamble for “an abiding respect for Christian (1994, p. 10). values” (Bahamas Independence Order, 1973, Constitutional reform is a vital ingredient in Preamble) “as a declaration that The Bahamas shaping a more progressive future; however, is a Christian nation” (Benjamin & LeGrand, in The Bahamas, as in the Commonwealth 2012, p. 29). Caribbean in general, “the discourse on The issue of legal spaces can be spun as a constitutional reform is fundamentally sterile threat to Bahamian sovereignty, and the issue and technocratic and not tied to any of multi-normativity makes constitutional philosophical direction” (Barrow-Giles, 2010, reform towards gender equality a political pp. 7-8). The challenge is to shift this minefield domestically. Many callers on talk paradigm and to challenge these inherited radio vocally oppose the proposals, and hosts notions. Failure to do so means accepting the

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 30 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. shackles of coloniality.

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 31

REFERENCES and fury: Newspaper coverage of the Aranha, S. B. (2014, November 14). Equally marital rape debate in New Providence. distracted: Losing sight of the referendum. The International Journal of Bahamian [Web log post]. Retrieved from Under the Studies, 18, 16–35. Almond Tree http://dx.doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v18i0.164 https://sbaranha.wordpress.com Bethel, N. (2000). Navigations: The fluidity of /2014/11/21/equally-distracted-losing- national identity in the postcolonial sight-of-the-referendum/ Bahamas. (Unpublished doctoral Aranha, S. B. (2015). Citizenship as a dissertation), University of Cambridge, fundamental right: How the Bahamian Cambridge, England. constitution misimagines the nation. Bethel, N. (2003). Engendering The Bahamas: International Journal of Bahamian A gendered examination of Bahamian Studies, 22(1), 7–21. nation making, or national identity and http://dx.doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v21i1.212 gender in the Bahamian context. College of Bahamas Constitutional Commission. (2003). The Bahamas Research Journal, 12, 72– The Bahamas constitution: Options for 84. change. Nassau, Bahamas: Government of http://dx.doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v12i0.54 The Bahamas. Retrieved from Cartwright-Carroll, T. (2016, February 2). http://www.lexbahamas.com/Constitutiona Opposition ‘the weakest in decades.’ The l%20reform%20options%20for%20change Nassau Guardian. Retrieved from .PDF http://www.thenassauguardian.com/news/6 Bahamas Constitutional Review Commission. 2336 (2006). Preliminary report & provisional Christie, P. G. (2015, November). Statement. recommendations. Nassau: Government of Presented at the 21st Conference of the The Bahamas. Retrieved from Parties to the United Nation Convention on http://islandwoo-ivil.tripod.com/ Climate Change (COP21), November 30- whatsupbahamas/id13.html December 11, 2015, Paris, France. Bahamas Department of Statistics. (2002). Retrieved from The 2000 census of population and https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ housing report. Nassau, Bahamas: Ministry paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop21cmp of Economic Development. 11_leaders_event_bahamas.pdf Bahamas Department of Statistics. (2012). Constitutional Commission. (2013). Report of 2010 Census of population and housing. the Constitutional Commission into a Nassau, Bahamas: Author. review of The Bahamas constitution. Nassau, Bahamas: Government of The Barrow-Giles, C. (2010, January). Regional Bahamas. Retrieved from trends in constitutional developments in https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/con the Commonwealth Caribbean. Paper nect/7c2fe440-cb66-4327-9bf3- presented at the Conflict Prevention and 432131510cc4/Constitution+Commission+ Peace Forum. Retrieved from Report+2013_8JULY2013.pdf?MOD=AJP http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/ ERES cpadocs/Cynthia%20Barrow.pdf Crime solving must be free of politics. (2014, Benjamin, L., & LeGrand, C. (2012). Sound January 6). The Tribune. Retrieved from

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 32 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good.

http://www.tribune242.com/news/2014/jan from https://www.academia.edu/4554616/ /06/briefly/ ARTICLES_The_Haitian_Diaspora_in_the Dames, C. (2012, February 27). A cause for _Bahamas_An_Alternative_View change: Bahamas should revisit issues in Maycock, D. (2002, February 27). failed 2002 referendum. The Nassau Referendum result ‘key to election’ – PM. Guardian. Retrieved from http://political- The Tribune. bahamas.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_archi Mitchell, F. (2015, March 25). Immigration as ve.html a national security issue. Retrieved from Dames, C. (2014, November 10). Shaping a http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/publis legacy: Clock ticks on achieving big things h/bis-news-updates/Mitchell_Immigration_ in current term. The Nassau Guardian. As_A_National_Security_Issue40874.shtm Retrieved from l http://www.thenassauguardian.com/nationa PM opens constitutional amendment debate. l-review/51629-shaping-a-legacy (2014, August 7). The Freeport News. Gilbert, L. (2013, July 9). Prime Minister Retrieved from Christie praises the Constitutional http://freeport.nassauguardian Commission. The Eleutheran. Retrieved .net/Politics/Parliament/PM-opens- from http://www.eleutheranews.com Constitutional-Amendment-Debate /permalink/3353.html Rolle-Brown, K. (2014, July 24). Referendum Hainey, R. (2013, August 6). Gaming: What set for November 6. The Nassau Guardian. they did in The Bahamas. Bermuda Sun. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.thenassauguardian. http://www.bermudasun.bm/ com/news/49040 Content/BUSINESS/Business-Press- Sears, A. (1994). The Haitian question in The Releases/Article/Gaming-What-they-did- Bahamas. Journal of The Bahamas in-Bahamas/72/1017/69111 Historical Society, 16, 10–20. Hall, M. (2012, April 20). Political Smith, G. (2002, February 1). PM defends empowerment for women: Is there a glass referendum. The Tribune, p. 11. ceiling for Bahamian women in politics? The Bahamas Weekly, Retrieved from Smith, G. (2002. February 11). PM: http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/publis Referendum is partisan. The Tribune, p. 1. h/bahamian- Smith, G. (2002. February 26). PM: Suffering politics/Is_there_a_glass_ceiling of past is over. The Tribune, p. 1. _for_BAHAMIAN_women_in_politics214 Smith, L. (2013, January 29) Despite low 82.shtml turn-out, Bahamians vote down legal Johnson, D. R. (2008). Critical problems in gaming [Web log post]. Retrieved from the constitutional law of the http://www.bahamapundit.com/2013/01/de Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Nassau, spite-low-turn-out-bahamians-vote-down- Bahamas: Terenshad. legal-gaming.html Louis, B. M. (2011).The Haitian diaspora in Smith, R. M. (2002, February 5). Bid to stop The Bahamas: An alternative view. referendum. The Tribune, p. A1. Wadabagei: A Journal of the Caribbean Thompson, T. (2012, July 27). PM defends and its Diasporas, 13(3), 74–94. Retrieved

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good. 33

PLP’s position on failed 2002 referendum. BILLS AND LEGISLATION The Nassau Guardian, Retrieved from Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Act. (2002). http://www.thenassauguardian.com/index.p Retrieved from http://www.lexbahamas. hp?option=com_content&view=article&id com/Microsoft%20Word%20- =32907:pm-defends-plps-position-on- %20The%20Bahamas%20Constitution%2 failed-2002- 0_Amendment_%20Act%202002.pdf referendum&catid=3:news&Itemid=27 Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 2) Act. Thompson, T. (2013, January 30). PM orders (2002). Retrieved from http://www. web shops to close. The Nassau Guardian. lexbahamas.com/Microsoft%20Word%20- Retrieved from %20The%20Bahamas%20Constitution%2 http://www.thenassauguardian.com/index.p 0_Amendment%20__No.%202_%20Bill- hp?option=com_content&view=article&id %202002.pdf =36930:pm-orders-web-shops-to- close&catid=3:news&Itemid=27 Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 3) Act. (2002). Retrieved from http://www. Thompson, T. (2014, August 7). FNM wants lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co apology for 2002 ‘no’ campaign. The nstitution%20_amendment_%20_No.%20 Tribune. Retrieved from 3_%20Act-%202002.pdf http://www.tribune242.com/news/2014/au g/07/fnm-wants-apology-2002-no- Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 4) Act. campaign/ (2002). Retrieved from http://www. lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co Turnquest, A. (2015, October 15). Smith nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_No.4_% urges referendum before end of next June.” 20Act%202002.pdf The Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.tribune242.com/news/2015/oct Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 5) Act. /15/smith-urges-referendum-end-next-june/ (2002). Retrieved from http://www. lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co United Nations Committee on the Elimination nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_No.5_% of Discrimination against Women 20Act%202002.pdf (CEDAW). (2012, July 27). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 6) Act. Elimination of Discrimination against (2002). Retrieved from http://www. Women: Bahamas. Retrieved from lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ceda nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_No.6_% w/docs/co/CEDAW-C-BHS-CO-1-5.pdf 20Act%202002.pdf Virgil, K. (2014, August 8). PM will not Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 7) Act. apologise for 2002 no campaign. The (2002). Retrieved from http://www. Tribune, lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co http://www.tribune242.com/news/2014/au nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_No.7_% g/08/pm-will-not-apologise-2002-no- 20Act%202002.pdf campaign/ Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 8) Act. (2002). Retrieved from http://www. lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_No.8_% 20Act%202002.pdf

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016) 34 S. B. Aranha. Bahamian-ness as an Exclusive Good.

Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 9) Act. (2014). Retrieved from (2002). Retrieved from http://www. https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/con lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co nect/a26bb8c1-57b4-4a72-8650- nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_no.9_% 202e1c51be94/BAHAMAS+CONSTITUT 20Act%202002.pdf ION+(AMENDMENT)(NO+4)+BILL+201 Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) (No. 10) Act. 4.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (2002). Retrieved from http://www. Bahamas Independence Order, no. 1080: The lexbahamas.com/The%20Bahamas%20Co Constitution. (1973). Nassau, Bahamas: nstitution%20_Amendment_%20_No.10_ Government of The Bahamas. Retrieved %20Act%202002.pdf from http://laws.bahamas. Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Bill. (2014). gov.bs/cms/images/LEGISLATION/SUBO Retrieved from https://www.bahamas.gov RDINATE/1973/1973- .bs/wps/wcm/connect/2d70c6b7-a41c- 1080/TheBahamasIndependenceOrder1973 4dc2-aee1-a18df350cbc7/BAHA _1.pdf MAS+CONSTITUTION+(AMENDMENT Constitutional Referendum Act. (1977). )+BILL+2014.pdf?MOD=AJPERES Retrieved from Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Bill (No. 2). http://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LE (2014). Retrieved from https://www. GISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1977/1977- bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/connect/adbcbcc 0016/ConstitutionalReferendumAct_1.pdf 3-fc00-4b64-8284-7755dfe9767a Gaming Act. (2014). Retrieved from /BAHAMAS+CONSTITUTION+(AMEN https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/con DMENT)(NO+2)+BILL+2014.pdf?MOD= nect/2950553a-206a-4efa-befe- AJPERES ef2fb60f3ae5/Gaming+Bill,+2014.odt+- Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Bill (No. 3). +LAID+IN+HOUSE.pdf?MOD=AJPERE (2014). Retrieved from https://www. S bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/connect/6103e0 Matrimonial Causes Act. (1879). 64-619c-4816-bdb7-5916fe6f79 http://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LE 18/BAHAMAS+CONSTITUTION+(AME GISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1879/1879- NDMENT)(NO+3)+BILL+2014.pdf?MOD 0006/MatrimonialCausesAct_1.pdf =AJPERES Bahamas Constitution (Amend.) Bill (No. 4).

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 22 (2016)