It came to my attention last month that our government was planning to postpone, once again, the hosting of the Caribbean Festival of Arts, if it had not yet done so. Announcements to that effect would be made very soon, I was told. The fact that such announcements have not yet been made may make this post obsolete. I rather doubt it, however.
It should be no surprise to anyone at all that I think this is a terrible idea. It’s not just because I would like to write for a living and make that living in the country in which I grew up. It’s also because it’s flying in the face of what international agencies focussed on development economics suggest is the place of culture in that development.
For those of us who don’t know, or who haven’t noticed, the world has changed. As I write, indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the US President is opening the door for negotiations with Cuba, which, as we all know, is the only viable competitor for The Bahamas’ prosperity in the Caribbean region. In fact, it’s possible to argue that the only reason The Bahamas has maintained its supreme position in the region has been because the fifty-year long US embargo of Cuba, has coincided with the latest Bahamian boom. But now, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is visiting Cuba, and the Obama administration is making very clear noises that the embargo will soon be lifted.
At the same time, for the first time in almost twenty years, the Bahamian government’s plan for prosperity — foreign investment, foreign investment, foreign investment — is not bearing fruit. Why not? The reasons are various. Perhaps the biggest is the reason Barack Obama himself gave for changing the way the USA has done business for the past generation or so — that trickle-down economics, or the spreading of the wealth accumulated by the rich and mighty — does not work. It no longer works in the USA, which is the greatest nation in the world; and it has not worked in The Bahamas as an engine of development for a country that has not yet invested in itself. Oh, it has done well in providing a couple of decades’ worth of get-rich-quick money for a smattering of people. But as we are noticing, where the sharing of wealth is dependent on the goodwill of the greedy, little gets shared. And so our current “wealth” is almost wholly dependent on the goodwill of the foreign investor, who is interested in the people of this nation only as workers — as block-layers, lifeguards, toilet-cleaners, cooks, drivers, or middle managers who have no ability to affect or shape company policy.
It is not foreign investment that economists and development agencies are suggesting is the engine of economic development in the 21st century; it’s culture. If you don’t believe me, go and look it up. Culture is no longer regarded as peripheral to development. It has been recognized as a viable, resilient, sustainable and renewable source of economic gain. A quick look at any international economic arrangement negotiated since 2002 will illustrate this truth. International agencies everywhere, from the European Union to the Organization of American States to the United Nations to the World Trade Organization, are recognizing the place of culture on the economic agenda.
But here, in The Bahamas, for a generation and a half — the entire time since Independence — our national policies have been shaped by a group of men and a handful of women whose actions and behaviour cumulatively suggest that they would rather erase Bahamian culture than invest in it.
Despite our so-called prosperity, we are the only Caribbean nation that cannot demonstrate our government’s pride in what makes us us. Part of this is because Government policy since 1992 has focussed on conning foreign investors to put in infrastructure that (we are told) the government cannot afford. The result? Despite soaring tourist arrivals (and, presumably, soaring demand for authentic Bahamian cultural products), the cultural industries are in effective decline. Those foreign investors in whom we’ve placed our trust? They don’t care whose culture visitors consume, as long as the profits flow to into their coffers. What we should have learned by now is that no people — or their representatives — can depend on someone else to develop their own cultural resources. We have to do that job for ourselves.
But we don’t. The recurrent budget allotted by our goverment to culture, despite all the fussing about a so-called Ministry of Culture and the appointment of Ministers of State, only crossed the $2 million line in the 2008-2009 budget year. The government agency charged with the development of Bahamian culture is not a Ministry, nor is it a Department; it is a Division, which means that even that $2 million is not administered by anybody in that Division. (It isn’t administered by the Minister, either, for anyone who remains fooled into thinking that this may be so.) The Chief Financial Officer in any government agency is the Permanent Secretary, or the Director of any Department that has a budget head; and the Cultural Affairs Division is so far away from having a budget head that it would be laughable if it were not so frightening. That $2 million is inscribed in a single line item under whatever budget head the Division is attached to (Office of the Prime Minister (Head 14) one year, Education (Head 38) the next, Youth, Sports and Culture (Head 47) the next). And that $2 million is expected to support festivals throughout The Bahamas, maintain a “national theatre” (which is so far from being either thing that it demonstrates the depth of the contempt that our governments have for us) run a National Arts Festival, finance sundry cultural events throughout the year, and run the $1.5 million festival of Junkanoo.
Stand this up against the over $91 million we allot to the Ministry of Tourism, much of which is spent outside The Bahamas. I was once told, laughingly, by a senior official in that Ministry that the budget I was given to work with (that was back in 2004, when the budget was maybe $1.2 million, give or take) was what Tourism managers were given to make mistakes with. We can afford Miss Universe, which will benefit Atlantis; but we cannot, it appears, afford CARIFESTA, which will benefit us all.
But it is not Miss Universe, which is a cultural brand developed elsewhere, with economic returns for the owners of the brand that will develop the Bahamian economy.
According to international agencies and economists the world around, it is our culture.
This is why the planned postponement of CARIFESTA, if it is indeed so planned (and if it isn’t, the lack of any progress towards the hosting of that festival in 2010 indicates that a decision has already been made, if not announced), is the terrible idea that it is.
I have yet to be convinced that Miss Universe will benefit the Bahamian economy substantially, other than in the collection of departure taxes, which will be funnelled into agencies that spend their monies outside the nation anyway. I am sure it will keep the Kerzners happy. I know, however, that I and mine will certainly not benefit in any way from Miss Universe; nor, I imagine, will most other people in the cultural industries, unless their name be Ronnie Butler or K.B. and unless they be set to open for whatever international giant that comes to perform. I do not think that food vendors or writers or poets or improv performers or even the broad Junkanoo community will benefit in any substantial way from Miss Universe, not to mention the car rental agencies, the restaurants and watering holes on the Bahamian side of the bridge, the small hotels and guest houses, the vast majority of taxi drivers and the tour bus companies not sanctioned by Atlantis, the street cleaners, the road-repairers, the marching bands, the graphic designers, the t-shirt makers, or the film community.
These are the people who will benefit from CARIFESTA, however, which is unsuited to be housed at Atlantis, that most inauthentic institution, that theme park for the unsuspecting, which only resides among us, but is not of us. The influx of visitors, and the type of visitors that will make up that influx, will be interested in us, who we are, what we do, and will spend money on what is most Bahamian, will not be conned into overspending on what is fictional at best.
And yet (I’m told) our leaders believe that to host the Festival will be a waste of money in the end.
I know this much. Economic evidence from around the world exists which proves our leaders wrong. And common sense suggests it too. Our development will not happen at the hands of foreigners; it is in our own hands, and the hands of the governments we elect to lead us. We can read the reports for ourselves, and accept the idea that culture is the economic sector in which to invest for nations that are still developing; or we can share the delusions of our politicians, which confuse the grandeur of the monstrosities the foreign investors build (and usually protect behind gates and bridges and visitor passes) with development of a nation and of a people. We need to make up our own minds. From here on in, it’s up to us.
{ 13 comments }
Hello Nicolette,
I’m conducting feminist research on how American foreign policy affects popular support for terrorism. I’m particularly interested in incorporating the views of women, non-whites, and people living outside of America and Western Europe. The survey can be accessed at
http://www.johnmaszka.com/SURVEY.html
I would really value your opinion and the opinion of your readers.
Thank you,
John Maszka
In my review of this subject (posted at http://www.bahamapundit.com) I quote you as saying: “there is nothing – either in law or on the ground – to support, encourage or develop artistic activity” in the Bahamas.
But on reflection there is quite a lot. What about the following?
•the national art gallery
•the national centre for the performing arts
the Antiquities, Monuments and Museums Corp (which operates five well-managed public facilities in Nassau – three forts and two museums – and two museums on the out islands).
•the Collins Estate, which the AMMC is redeveloping into a key cultural attraction.
•the straw market, a multi-million-dollar subsidy
•the arawak cay fish fry – another public subsidy in terms of free land, maintenance and business promotion
Not to mention our natural heritage sites like national parks and Clifton.
Thanks, Larry. You quoted me correctly, and I was wrong; you caught me in a dogmatic frame of mind in our email exchange. There are some things in law and on the ground ostensibly to support artistic activity in The Bahamas.
Of these, NAGB and AMMC are the only truly viable institutions, and are the best things going. They are governed by legislation and they have the ability to raise their own funds. They have some autonomy from the political directorate which is why they are well-managed.
Collins Estate comes under AMMC. AMMC manages many other facilities throughout the Bahamas. Despite the great job that it does, AMMC is hard-pressed to even begin to protect and develop all the historic sites in the country, as it lacks both funding and personnel. Compare this with the Ministry of Tourism and its abundance of both.
The Clifton Heritage Authority is a strange animal. It has governing legislation but its authority is limited, and superseded by, the AMMC Act, which places the ruins themselves under the auspices of AMMC, with a built-in potential for conflict and/or confusion.
The straw market is a waste of time and money. It does not support Bahamian craft — in fact it is responsible for killing off the industry.
Arawak Cay Fish Fry – publicly subsidized but extremely poorly regulated, and so a waste of public funds. The best part — the eating establishments — are squatters. The land they occupy is managed by several different agencies, and who manages it depends on the whim of the particular government in power, or even of the particular minister in power. Currently Agriculture manages the performing space — where is the sense in that? Agriculture, may I remind you, has already managed the Botanical Gardens into the ground.
The National Centre for the Performing Arts has no backstage, no lights, no sound, no changing facilities for performers. It is not worthy of the name and is an insult to performers (the performing arts part) and to the Bahamian nation (the national part). It is a good cinema, but has never had the investment to allow it to develop into any kind of functioning centre. It’s an expensive, inadequate auditorium.
It has no independent management. It comes under the so-called Department of Culture (Cultural Affairs Division) and is currently administered by an employee whose official title is Masquerader. It has no budget line item. It has no maintenance line item (though one was requested every year). It has no capital expenditure line item. It has a rental fee, but that does not go to the theatre, it goes to the Consolidated Fund and is not returned. In rentals alone it generates between $30,000 and $60,000 a year in revenue but that money is not reinvested in the space. It is a disgrace.
To say nothing of the National Dance School, which occupies rented premises after having been moved — by the government — from two publicly-owned spaces, and which costs the government some $80,000 in rent a year, and the government must pay utilities and maintain the building.
To say nothing either of the over $100,000 in subsidies given to the National Cultural Entities, which I should have mentioned as well. However, the lack of an overall cultural strategy leads to waste in this regard too: the groups have to find spaces in which to rehearse, and at times incur fees. The Dance Company, indeed, rents its studios, just as the Dance School does — another waste of funds.
Proposals have been advanced to consolidate the Centre for the Performing Arts and the National Dance School & Company, but nothing has come of them, perhaps because the up-front expenditure for amalgamating the three (the Centre for the Performing Arts would have to be upgraded and renovated at some cost). As part of preparations for CARIFESTA, if it were to be held, it was recommended that that transformation be effected. The price tag was in excess of $10 million, but considering the fact that expenditure would be a true investment that would, with management that is as good as that of the NAGB and the AMMC, rather than the current frittering away of funds that occurs on an annual basis, pay off in real terms in a few years’ time, while also enhancing our tourist product, creating sustainable jobs, and strengthening Bahamian cultural identity all at once.
Dear Nico:
In your reply to Larry you enunciate very clearly why the market offers the best route to solving problems rather than government.
Development does happen at the hands of the foreigner, in spite of what you suggest, as few Bahamians seem interested.
Development of our culture is the responsibility of those of us that think it is important.
If enough of us don’t think it’s important, then we won’t do it.
Taking more financial resources from Bahamians to fulfill my desires, or yours for that matter, is not the correct approach in my not so humble opinion.
But as Larry points out, Culture gets quite a bit already.
The bigger the government becomes, the less effective it becomes at accomplishing its tasks, unless it takes by force what it wants of course.
By the way, how would CARIFESTA help us all?
Kind regards,
Rick
Where you and I appear to differ, Rick, and where our governments of all creeds and colours also differ from me, is in our definition of “development”. For me, the material is not the be-all and the end-all. For me, true development has been achieved when a people united can look at their nation and find something there of which to be proud.
Aside from our economic status, which, I agree with you, is remarkable (but perhaps accidental, owing to the absence-through-embargo, for the self-same 40-year period, of our most formidable competitor, Cuba), of what in our nation can we look at and all be proud?
I suggest that even given our so-called “development” the market in The Bahamas has not been truly free. Without Cuba next door to compete with us (and for those people who have no idea what that could be like, I suggest they spend some time in the Archives and/or with a good history book and read the actions of the governments during the 1930s and 1940s to try and boost our economy through the expansion of our tourism product, and, further, examine the techniques used by the proto-UBP to do so), we have been working in a market that has been unnaturally skewed in our direction by — oh, my — the decision of successive American governments.
I suggest that even the land boom and foreign investment strategies will fail, and dramatically, the minute Cuba opens to that kind of economic activity. Cuban land, and Cuba’s tourism industry, are wide open, and will afford huge returns on foreign investment. And everything there will be cheaper, far cheaper, than here, with better value for money, too — a better educated population, a prouder people.
And once again, Rick, I am not seeking to take more resourcs from Bahamians to fulfill my desires. I never have. Like Pat Rahming, I am advocating a more equitable allocation of funds, a redistribution up of what we currently waste, an investment that will bring returns in a product that every truthful student of the Bahamian tourism product will conclude is failing, losing ground, losing its edge.
How will CARIFESTA help us all? Just for your information, it’ll bring 10 days of cultural activity on the Bahamian side of the bridge. Not counting tourists, it will bring between 1500 to 3000 performers to Nassau, most of whom will live not on our Gold Coast (Cable Beach and Paradise Island) but in more modest areas, in smaller hotels and guest houses, who will need food and transportation and who will spend money for that as well as for water and for liquor. In Trinidad, each performer spent a conservative US $100 a day on food, drink, transportation and accommodation, money that went directly into the hands of Trinidadians, not of foreigners who, here, repatriate over 50% of that money.
That’s the main benefit to “us all”. The money that CARIFESTA will attract will be spent among Bahamians, and go directly into the Bahamian economy, and not be filtered into it through salaries and tips, which is the main way in which it will go. And CARIFESTA — any cultural festival — would provide employment for a group of people currently underserved by our “development” model — artists, performers, seamstresses, designers, graphic artists, photographers, writers, t-shirt makers, strawcraft workers, etc, etc, etc — people in whose work we can actually be proud, and for whose work most Bahamians currently do not pay.
But don’t take my word for it. Go do the research on the economic impact of festivals for yourself. Go see who spends what on festivals where, and figure out what returns we are missing by our current misdirection of public funding.
Not more spending. Wiser investment. That’s what I’m after.
Great.
So why don’t you put a group of like minded individuals together to bring CARIFESTA here without the Government if it’s that beneficial?
You can have a representative from Government on the committee to facilitate your duty free permits etc and to resolve those red tape issues that will ultimately arise.
Then it will be done the way you want, without strings attached for future generations to pay for.
What about the strings attached to the debt that’s being gone into for future generations for the dredging of the harbour for larger cruise ships? Is that a wise allocation of the people’s money, would you say? Or the money that the taxpayers spend at the moment to assist with the advertising of Atlantis?
I think the Government has to find a way to privatise those issues.
Maybe this is a great leap, but sell the port to a cruise ship association.
Atlantis should pay to advertise itself for sure.
Can I expect the government to pay advertising for the company I work for?
I keep going back to first principles. If these events are as viable as people state, they should be able to pay for themselves.
I do not see why we need more cruise ships, frankly. It’s a failing strategy and investing more of my money in it will not make it more successful. If you can explain what we will gain from the dredging, rather than leaping to privatization (?????) I would be grateful. I fail to understand it.
I don’t think public funds should be used for it.
Let the cruise ships that make the profit do it.
Do we need the same amount of cruise ships or do we need no cruise ships.
Where do you draw the line?
I don’t know whether we need even the current number of cruise ships, frankly; I am convinced we don’t need more. The only people who benefit from more cruise ship arrivals are the politicians who can spout off tourist arrival numbers, but without an understanding of how those numbers translate into revenue they are meaningless. I am entirely unconvinced of the value of this sector of the tourism industry to the Bahamian economy.
Tourism figures indicate that although the overall number of arrivals has increased over time the positive economic impact of those arrivals has decreased. I don’t know whether any studies of the negative economic impact — which would include environmental damage to our harbour and the monopolizing of onshore tours by the cruise ships and Atlantis together (witness the article by Neil Hartnell in today’s Tribune) — have been done, but anecdotally the ceding of control over our port to cruise ship operators does not seem to bring real economic benefits to Bahamians.
I advocate spending smarter, not more. Dredging Nassau Harbour to accommodate even bigger cruise ships is not spending intelligently at all, given the lacklustre economic return in this arena.
I am coming into this conversation on the corpse side of it, and my information is drawn on literature 3 years old, however, cruise ships are nothing but floating all inclusive’s. Copious research is available that addresses the lack of money spend in communities and environments outside of the properties. Expended funds are usually backended with high levels of leakage.
With this said, attracting additional ships with larger capacity directly lines the cruiseline pockets along with the foreign ticket agent.
However, literature emerging from the Anthropology of Tourism continues to point towards the position that more money is realized from non-cruise, non-inclusive, mid to retired patrons. It also suggests that this clientele as at its disposal greater levels of disposable income, and appear to have been exposed to cultural models outside of their own and have cultivated an interest in the items that make of this area.
I find myself more convinced by this perception and thus a large %age of nicolette’s position. What I am not yet convinced of though is that we possess the capacity to generate the kind of interest that influence persons on this disposition to visit.
The very elements mentioned by nicolette that will draw the visitor to cuba appears to be lacking here at home. Pride appears to be replaced with arrogance and an position of entitlement. Unfortunately, to get to the artisan the visitor must negotiate this same wider public… unless the artisan’s become digitalists….
god my grammar has become atrocious
Comments on this entry are closed.