Black Food, by Ean Maura

Blackfood

by Ean Maura

“...If we are prepared to accept self-discipline, we have the capacity to be self-reliant.If we can accept self- reliance, we have attained the correct mental attitude to discuss ‘Progress’.” Sir Lynden Pindling (1975)

“Any leadership that teaches you to depend upon another race is a leadership that will enslave you.” Marcus Garvey

Colonialism is a historical period which began in 1492 with the forceful and murderous takeover of Native American life and property, solely for the benefit of Europeans. Europeans took this system wherever they went throughout the entire world. Europeans also took their religion, their culture, and their diseases and held the future of the world at ransom: death or perpetual servitude were the options. By magnifying and exploiting differences among indigenous people, they slipped into control. They ruled the with an iron fist; forcefully extracting wealth while simultaneously forcing the imposition of their debilitating culture on the subjugated people. They learnt that replacing the indigenous belief systems with Christianity and using public torture and executions as the alternative, would have a lasting effect on those same subjugated people. There were many aspects to this vicious system that combined to control the whole person. In order to survive one had to reject his and her own belief systems ideologies, culture, language, and not only accept that which is European, but accept it as superior to your own. The most lasting impact by these terrorist have been on the minds of local populations throughout the world. As evidenced by the Stockholm syndrome, when people are held captive for extended periods of time, they adapt to the situation and build up an affinity, if not infatuation, for their oppressors. This is the situation we, in the Bahamas find ourselves in today. Forty-four (44) years after Majority Rule and thirty-seven (37) years after Independence; nothing much has changed! Those who benefited during colonial times still maintain their control; those instruments of oppression, like the Church and the system of governance, are still in place; so too do we, the subjugated people still find ourselves on the lowest rungs of the ladder of success; still, with no place at humanity’s dinner table, hoping for scraps. As a matter of fact, the system is even more entrenched now economically.

During World War I the subjugated people of the world were forced to fight for that which they did not enjoy; freedom. The colonial powers were in dire need of the assistance of their subjugated peoples in order to resist being colonized themselves. This disproved the invincibility of Europeans, and began to chisel away the false image of bravado. By the end of the Second World War, just a few years later, the subjugated people were needed once again to save their oppressors, as Germany almost annihilated her brother and sister European nations. This was the final strike of the match and the fire of resistance would ignite as the local populations began, one by one, to fight for their right to rule themselves. The colonial powers saw the writing on the wall, their empires were collapsing. They realize the futility of opposition early. So they quickly mobilized to ensure they would not lose their investment entirely. They pushed documents on the negotiating tables of their old minions that ensured their domination continued, while their responsibility to the oppressed was minimized. They gave each country a flag and a song (national anthem) and called it Independence. Those of us living this stage of development, call It Neocolonialism; the final stage of Imperialism, according to Kwame Nkrumah. He furthers that it is an attempt to export the social conflicts of capitalists countries.

Neocolonialism (mixed with globalization) is the newest epoch in the saga of “the oppressed man’s struggle’. Mark Smith in his paper describes neo-colonialism as an economic situation of former colonies. He furthers, “ Political decolonization did little or nothing to alter the economic imbalance (between former colonies and former masters)...International law, institutions such as the World Bank (and banks in general), corporate property rights and operation of the world markets has left control in the hands of the elites of the former metropolitan powers” . Under neocolonialism the relationship between the ‘centers’ (developed countries) and the ‘periphery’ (developing countries) is said to involve:

The export of capital from the developing country to the developed country.
Reliance on Western manufactured goods and services which thwarts indigenous development efforts.
Further deterioration in terms of trade for newly independent countries
A continuation of the process of cultural Westernization which guarantees the developing country as a market outlet for the products of the West. (West here refers to the Developed countries.)

According to Smith transnational corporations are the main culprits of neo-colonialism. He charges that they “exploit local resources and influence international trade and national governments to their own advantage’. Nkrumah in Neocolonialism adds, “ In order to make it attractive to those upon whom it is practiced it must be shown as capable of raising their living standards but the economic object of neocolonialism is to keep those standards depressed in the interest of the developed countries’. This is particularly relevant to the Bahamas where it would seem that the majority of the population would relinquish aspects of national sovereignty to keep the preclearance of flights to the US and the ability to travel to the US on a police certificate. No one ever questions how come US citizens can travel without passports and definitely without a visa. We have accepted our subordinate status regardless of the disparity in the relationship between the two countries. Any attempts at changing this situation is met with cries of treason.

It should be pointed out here that differences between colonialism and neo-colonialism is prima facie, that is only on the surface. The main agent of the former is a State or Nation that orchestrates the entire scheme to facilitate the benefit of its private citizens. On the other hand in Neocolonialism the private citizens or an aggregate thereof, most times operating as Multinational corporations are the face of the operation with the backing of their State and all of its machinery. However, the results remain the same. A great contributor to status quo is, “the rulers of neo-colonial States derive their authority to govern not from the will of the people, but from the support they obtain from the neo-colonial masters. They have therefore little interest in developing education, strengthening the bargaining power of their workers employed at expatriate firms, or indeed taking any steps which would challenge the colonial patterns of commerce and industry, which it is the object of neo-colonialism to preserve.” This means that if you feel your leaders are listening more to outside influence than its own electorate... you are probably living in a Neo-colonized State. Locally during elections, candidates release their financial information under the guise of transparency. This smoke and mirror tactic, which was heralded as a mark of development when implemented, does little to inform the Bahamian electorate of whose bed our leaders are in, that is, the true source of their wealth.

The political elite, from the UBP to the contemporary FNM, most of whom are lawyers have created a network of secret deals and clientelism that make a mockery of any attempt at economic independence. Everything that was put in place by the ‘masters’ of this paradise before independence, has not only been maintained, but further entrenched. The Bay Street Boys are at the root of the problem of a ‘government for sale’ to everyone but its own population. In 1964 the Bahamas was given a higher degree of self-determination. This was happening in the context of the dissolution of entire British Empire. The Executive Council (Cabinet today) had a greater degree of control over who they could do business with and the nature of that business. The then government, with Sir Stafford Sands leading the way, from behind, set the precedent for what is today the modus operandi of successive Bahamian governments. Sir Randol Fawkes gives the clearest understanding of this clientelism in his book, Faith That Moved the Mountain.

The tale begins in 1937 with the election of Stafford Sands, a young lawyer, to the House of Assembly. “As Legal Advisor to the House…it was common practice for Sands to be the lawyer for both the Government and the client that sought its favor.” By 1945 Sands would be appointed to the Governor’s Executive Council (present day Cabinet) and the leader of Government Business in the House. He used these positions to push for a ‘complete monopoly on casino gambling’ for a syndicate including C. Trevor Kelly and himself. When this failed he resigned from both positions, but never gave up on his quest to bring gambling to the shores of the Bahamas. He made a number of failed applications to the Governor in Council until April 1 1963 when his scheme finally worked. A company called the Bahamas Amusements Ltd. Was granted a ten year license to operate casinos in Grand Bahama. The difference was a ‘shrewd’ businessman, Wallace Groves; an ex-con, from the United States. He, according to Fawkes, “used all sorts of methods to muzzle the press and influence people in high places… Groves’ group of multinational corporations literally swallowed up society… by wielding such influence over the people’s elected representative that he became stronger and more powerful than the government”. This illuminated what would come to be a long lasting relationship between Bahamian lawmakers and international nefarious characters, based solely on using the Bahamas for criminal exploits. Block and Scarpetti in their paper “Casinos and banking: Organized Crime in the Bahamas states, “ In numerous contemporary cases professional criminals from the US and elsewhere are known to utilize casinos and financial institutions to launder money and to hide large amounts of illicitly acquired money”. They furthered, “developers in the Bahamas started the process of bringing casinos and banks together to serve underworld interests”. Research doe show that casinos and offshore banks originated in the Bahamas around the same time. According to Block and Scarpetti, “Key Bahamian offshore banks were formed by and for individuals deeply involved in Nevada casinos and who subsequently played big roles in developing the first large scale, modern casino in the Bahamas…Most likely the relationship between the casinos and the banks emerged to hide the casino’s ‘skim (unreported profits)”.

Groves came to the Bahamas in the 1930’s started two companies and bought a Cay. He also met Stafford Sands. By 1938 Groves would be arrested and later convicted on charges of fraud and stealing almost $1 million from a company he was associated with. He spent two years in prison. All throughout this ordeal his agent, Sands, was working on his behalf to set up his empire. They began with a Certificate of Exemption granted in 1939 to two casinos already illegally operating. By 1944 Groves would be back in the Bahamas to further his plans with Sands. They collaborated to create the Hawksbill Creek Agreement that allowed the creation of a port and an industrial complex on Grand Bahama; signed on August 4, 1955. Probably enough time for the right people to forget his criminal past. Groves formed the Grand Bahama Port Authority Ltd. To dredge and construct a deep water harbor and turning basin at Hawksbill Creek to facilitate ‘factories and other industrial undertaking to be set up there’. The Government surrendered 138,296 acres of Crown Land to the Port Authority for the giveaway price of $ 2.80 per acre ($387,228.80) to be called Freeport. This is the first example of a Bahamian government selling its people short for private gains of its officials and their ‘patrons’. That is, the Port Authority and Wallace Groves got the government of the day to give away not only land but its sovereign authority over that land as Groves was granted ‘ the supreme right to administer and control’ Freeport’.

This debacle involved large sums of money paid to the political elite, to close their eyes to this mafia invasion of the Bahamas. The most handsomely paid was Stafford Sands who received ‘more than a million dollars from a Groves controlled company’. “Records of the company for 1964 show payments to Sir Stafford Sands of $515,900 for legal services and also a legal retainer payment of $10,000 per month.” Sands also received a consultants fee of $50,000 a year for 10 years. Of course he claims this never happened. Other beneficiaries of the scam were then Premier, Sir Roland Symonette, who got a ‘hefty’ consultancy agreement along with Dr. Raymond Sawyer, both members of the Governor’s Executive Council. Symonette received $16,800 a year for five years, while Sawyer got $5,600 for the same period. Sawyer was also the owner of the Hobby Horse Race Track. Trevor Kelly another member and owner of the Betty K made a shipping agreement in which his ship would be used in transporting materials for the development of Freeport. Another ‘consultant’ was Robert ‘Bobby’ Symonette, the Premier’s son. His sailing expertise got him $14,000 per month to advise on marina construction. Fawkes claimed that Eugene Dupuch received $10,000 and Sir Etienne Dupuch a major opponent, in public, to Sands’ scheme received at least one cheque personally of $2,800. He reportedly donated it to charity. He apparently had second thoughts about selling out and ‘stopped accepting the cheques’. Records from the 1967 Commission of Inquiry on gambling however shows that Tribune, through which Sir Etienne voiced his opposition, was paid $20,000 on January 10,1962. Needless to say the end result was a vote to allow gambling in the Bahamas. Sands and Groves had won. The Government had in effect been sold.

Where did the money come from to buy the Bahamas elite in such a manner? “In this, Groves and Sir Stafford Sands were immeasurably helped by the arrival on the scene of one Louis Chesler, who showed up in 1960 with $12 million to invest and more than a casual interest in gambling. From as early as 1961 they began to court Bahamian officials”. In September 1961 Chesler and Groves were ‘lavish hosts to a select group of key officials’ including; the Premier, the Attorney General, the Treasurer and the Colonial Secretary.

Who exactly was Chesler and where did he get all this money to throw around? ‘Big Lou’ as Chesler was known, was invited to the Bahamas by Groves. Together they formed the Grand Bahama Development Co. (DEVCO). Chesler made his first million trading in mining stock and land development in Florida. Chesler, it appeared, was the real link to the underworld. It is at the juncture of his involvement in Freeport that the criminal element rears its head. A number of Chesler’s associates were members of the Meyer Lansky crime syndicate. Brown states that Chesler was “Lansky’s Bahamian point man’. It is also through Chesler that investment banking entered the scheme. The connection was through the investment of Charles Allen, head of Allen and Co. an investment banking house, who bought 25% interest in the Port Authority. Chesler was sharp. He manipulated the political elite on both sides of the fence: Government and Opposition. On the side of Government Chesler had Sands letting him know every move while he kept close ties to the official Opposition, the PLP. Mike McLaney, hired by Chesler in the 1950’s to manage a Miami Beach dinner club forged close ties with the top brass of the PLP. According to Brown, McLaney ‘was instrumental in arranging a fleet of aircraft and other transportation used by the PLP in the campaign for the 1967 general election…the BIG one! It is interesting to note here that the election ended in a tie by both parties in the mob’s pocket so to speak. The tie had to be broken by the one man with probably the most character in the bunch, Sir Randol Fawkes; the future of the Nation rested, rightfully so, on his shoulders.

Chesler had a well laid plan and “less than a week after the Certificate (gambling license) was granted there were meetings attended by Meyer Lansky…and others to discuss issues concerning both the hotel and casino called the Monte Carlo.” According to Brown the plans for the casino was drawn in the official blueprint for the Lucayan Beach Hotel well before the gambling exemption came into effect. When the hotel and casino finally opened “a number of important Lansky racketeers were hired to work in the casino…including Frank Ritter”. Ritter was a known mafia affiliate. Block and Scarpitti add, “the Lansky men were firmly entrenched in casino management as well as overseers of all credit arrangements”. Brown tells how profitable the Monte Carlo was, “From its opening in January 1964, the Monte Carlo prospered and never had a losing night. At the end of five months it had $1 million… By the end of 1966 (its first year) the casino was grossing $8 million a year”. Fawkes though, ‘lets the cat out the bag’ as to what was really happening with the money. He recalls, ‘the commissioner of police, Nigel Morris, discreetly turned his face in the opposite direction while gamblers and gangsters in seven league boots (I believe boats) raced across the 700 islands under the cover of darkness, taking with them bags of money out of the colony for deposits into banks in Florida. In short, while the people slept their beautiful Bahamas became a captive city. Shame!” Block and Scarpitti put the situation into context, “Stock manipulators like Wallace Groves allied with well known financiers from the US and UK organized crime figures and, of course, important local politicians turned Grand Bahama into an experimental station for money gathering and laundering”.

The final piece of the puzzle was the establishment of offshore banks. Enter John Pullman, a Lansky crime associate, who had the special task of putting casinos and banks together. He was “instrumental in forming two banks created to handle the ‘skim’ from the Monte Carlo and most likely the Sands and Frontier casinos in Nevada”. The International Credit Bank was the bank of choice for the Monte Carlo scheme. It was formed by Pullman, a known ‘Canadian crime figure’. The ICB was stationed in Switzerland and had a branch in the Bahamas. A major shareholder of the bank was the International Credit Trust, located in Lichtenstein. The skim from the Monte Carlo was taken to “ICB Bahamas then to Switzerland and ultimately to the obscurity of Lichtenstein”. This was just one example. A 1967 Royal Commission reported large sums of money were packed in Pauli Girl beer cartons and sent o Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York. Most of the deposits were around $60,000 and ‘in one case $120,000 were being deposited’.

The politicians/ lackeys of the Lansky mob made one more move to secure the position of the new ‘masters’. The Bahamas has become synonymous with bank secrecy laws, until being placed on the OECD’s blacklist. It is interesting to note “since 1965 bank secrecy has been on legislation which prohibits and punishes disclosures…of an account holder’s name or financial situation”. This legislated secrecy also applies to corporations. This made the Bahamas a haven for securing and laundering ill-gotten funds. Even more interesting is the arrival of three entities in the Bahamas almost simultaneously: casinos, offshore banks and secrecy laws. None of the above are relevant in the lives of everyday Bahamians.

Only one book seemingly reflects the mood of the people of the Bahamas at this time, Sir Randol Fawkes’ Faith That Moved the Mountain. In his account not only do we see that most Bahamians at the time seem opposed to big time gambling, but a movement mobilized to stop it. “When the news of the extension of casino gambling hit the streets people under the righteous leadership of the Bahamas Christian Council, were electrified into action…and issued a broadside against casino gambling…the Roman Catholic Diocese made an equally strong statement. Like a mighty rushing wind these condemnations caught fire from church to church until they finally exploded into a ‘prayer-filled’ mass anti-gambling demonstration…” The issue was so contentious it even caused a schism in the UBP; with Sir Roland leading those opposing and Sir Stafford Sands, leading others who supported it, including the Premier’s own son, Bobby Symonette. However, the power brokers of the colony moved full steam ahead into the world of gambling. This is just what Nkrumah meant when he said ‘rulers of neo-colonized States derive their authority to govern…from the support which they obtain from their neo-colonial masters’. Further evidence of Sands et al as cronies of the mob and not just statesmen making a controversial decision for development is given, once again by Fawkes. He speaks of three different applications that were made to the same government, to open casinos in the Bahamas in the early 1960’s. All were declined. Huntington Hartford hotel complex made one, as did Ben Novak, a Florida hotelier. The third was made by Shirley Oakes Butler, daughter of Sir Harry Oakes. She pledged to donate 50% of its profits to the Bahamian community. Fawkes opined ‘the other applicants retained the wrong lawyers’, as Sands was later able to secure another casino license for the Paradise Island Enterprises, which too was connected with the mobsters of Freeport.

This relationship proved to be the undoing of the UBP’s political supremacy. The PLP would use information about the Freeport fiasco to embarrass the UBP internationally. Firsts they made petitions to the British Government and the UN’s Committee on Colonialism. This was made on the basis of the connection between the UBP and the international criminals collaborating to rape the Bahamas, if of nothing else, its good name. In September 1966 a delegation of revolutionaries, including Sir Lynden Pindling and Sir Randol Fawkes, went to the UN headquarters in New York to plead their cause. According to Fawkes, “We needed no fictions to inspire our dreams. The bare facts were excitement enough”.

With the involvement of Lansky and Chesler, international media houses began to make the connection between the new ‘developers’ of the Bahamas and international crime syndicates. The Wall Street Journal ran two articles on October 5 and 19. The London Economists and Life magazine did the same. The secret was now world news. Block has stated this was no fluke. This exposure, it was affirmed, was the doing of a Lansky associate with ties to the media. Why would the Lansky gang be working against their own agents? Lansky was brought into the scheme by Chesler who was brought in by Groves, the kingpin of Freeport, and the main man with UBP ties. Brown shed some light on this quoting from Life magazine, “not long after…Freeport was secured, Groves and Chesler moved into open conflict. In the end Groves bought Chesler’s stock in the company”. By 1966, at least on paper, Chesler would be gone, but this may have been a superficial move in the context of the time. International reports had high ranking officials ‘cleaning up their act’ as an election was eminent. Further, Brown shows that Lansky had not left with Chesler. Not only had he not left but he was courting the new contenders of power in the Bahamas: the PLP. It is said they not only funded the PLP, but gave the ammunition, facts that is, to move the UBP from the Pinnacle of power. By 1967 the old regime would be gone and a new era stepped in. For Lansky though business would remain as usual. Lansky had experienced the Revolution in Cuba and what that meant for their illicit profits. That is the Cuban Revolution dispelled all notions of imperialistic exploits, licit and illicit. Lansky ensured the same would not happen again in the Bahamas. Brown, in his article, states that Sir Lynden Pindling and the PLP during the 1967 election received financial assistance from ‘associates of the mob boss Mayer Lansky’. This means that by the time Majority Rule was championed these gangsters were totally entrenched in the affairs of the Bahamian government. Brown did state that McLaney, the PLP- mob connection, was placed on the stop list by the Pindling Government.

This web of deceit would be deeply ingrained in Bahamian politics and now even culture. According to KB, ‘e’rybody want tip’. Many of our elite, who come from the field of law and banking, continue the entrenchment of this particular brand of imperialism/ neocolonialism. The UBP may have started the process but the PLP played their part in cementing it into society. Evidence comes from the 1984 Commission of Inquiry on the nature of the relationship between the PLP and drug cartels. The capture and trial of Carlos (Joe) Lehder proved detrimental for the government of the day. It ushered in the Inquiry which almost broke up the Government. It also played a part in the defeat of the PLP after controlling the Bahamas for 25 years. The saga seems to begin as far as 1977; the Bahamas is termed internationally as a haven for securing ill gotten funds; this times those of drug cartels. Banks in Switzerland and Mexico were initially used but a crackdown by the US government forced them to look for alternatives. The Bahamas seemed to be the next best option. The Bahamas relationship with the drug world came through Lehder who bought an island in the Bahamas, exclusively for the transshipment of drugs. He would dub this island Norman’s Cay and would invest millions into his own paradise. He used the islands as a stopover for planes carrying what would add up to millions of dollars of drugs, into the US. For this he is crediting with revolutionizing drug shipments. Before now only small quantities would be transported by humans called ‘mules’. The Commission’s report of 1984 showed that certain members of the Bahamian political elite were to say the least complicit with the trade. The report actually showed how pervasive it had come in society; regular citizens, police, lawyers, contractors were all seduced by the prospects of wealth. Kendal Nottage a government MP was indicted on charges of money laundering in connection with a mafia drug ring. Just like the UBP’s scandal, this one hit international media as NBC reported that Bahamian officials were on the payroll of drug lords. So serious were the charges that there was talking of indicting Sir Lynden Pindling. Apparently he had not learned from Sir Stafford’s mistake. He did seem to do a better job of hiding any trail connecting him directly to the drug world. This proved, as Nkrumah stated, even though we had gotten independence our neo-colonized leaders let everything remain the same. As a matter of fact it would appear they tried to be kings of the empire which depended on their own peoples’ domination as opposed to trying to change it. It is obvious that they knew better. Sir Lynden in a speech in 1975 states, “political independence for the Bahamas is almost meaningless unless it holds forth the prospect of economic independence… Just as a target date was set for political independence, a target date should be set for economic independence…”. This, however never happened. In the Cabinet at the time of the disaster, were Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie, the future leaders of the nation. They would be trained to maintain status quo also, as they tasted the pie of clientelism. In the wake of the Inquiry, the PLP felt it necessary for Smith and Nottage two MPs out rightly named, to resign. According to Loftus Roker, also a member of the Cabinet, the response of both gentlemen was they would be willing as long as Ingraham and Christie were fired. The resignation and firing happened the same day. During the reign of both gentlemen as Prime Ministers, their Cabinets have been charged with the same behavior. Following the defeat of the PLP in 1992, it was said ‘ the fundamental problem was that ideologically the FNM government was much less different from its predecessor than its electoral rhetoric proclaimed’. During their first tenure in office Brent Symonette, one of the richest men in the country, had to step down from his post for giving his family preferential treatment in contracts. The second time around he was made deputy leader of the Party. Or perhaps Earl Deveaux taking rides in AGA Khan’s helicopter, while making a decision on letting him dredge our most vital resource or not. Of course he cried this is normal practice, but if the Bahamas National Trust got $1 million to approve the plan…how much did he get? Just recently a PLP MP charged in the House that the FNM needed to give “Kojack”, a drug dealer with ties to the Bahamas, back his money. There was no tirade about anyone making false claims. However the PLP cannot claim to be much better as their last time in office was riddled with charges of corruption. Sydney Collie and the fishing boats he was claiming was not his and Shane Gibson and the Anna Nicole Smith debacle…the list goes on. To make matters worse there is no one in the political arena who seems to want to challenge status quo, all that seems to be offered is more of the same. They wish to be new rulers of an old kingdom, and that is all the change they want. Any talking of development..how do we stop selling out ourselves and our country? Or History will put us in the same boat as those who came before us and our children will pay the price, which seems to get higher with every generation!

“A philosophy of development based solely on free enterprise means the sale of BEC and…Batelco to private individuals…it means that our economy must be dominated always by the profit motive, uninspired by a social conscience. No, such a philosophy cannot survive and prosper in this nation and those who espouse it know that it is true. They do not believe in themselves……” Sir Lynden Pindling (1975) These words are loud and clear!

Bibliography

Nkruma, Kwame “Neo-colonialism: The last Stage of Imperialism

Fawkes Randol, Faaith that Moved the Mountain

Smith, M K (2001) ‘Informal and non-formal education, colonialism and development’, the encyclopedia of formal education.

http://www.jabezcorner.com/Grand_Bahama/wall.htm LAs Vegas East

http: //freeport.nassauguardian.net?edictorial/322383100514288

http://thevelvetrocket.com/2008/02/01normans-cay-carlos-lehder-part-2

A Block and F. Scarpitti, ‘Casinos and Banking: Organized Crime in the Bahamas’. Deviant Behavior: reading in the Sociology of Norm Violations

Clientelism (also seen as clientalism or clientilism) refers to a form of social organization common in many developing regions characterized by "patron-client" relationships. In such places, relatively powerful and rich "patrons" promise to provide relatively powerless and poor "clients" with jobs, protection, infrastructure, and other benefits in exchange for votes and other forms of loyalty including labor. While this definition suggests a kind of "socioeconomic mutualism," these relationships are typically exploitative, often resulting in the perpetual indebtedness of the clients in what is described as a "debt-peonage" relationship. In some instances, patrons employ coercion, intimidation, sabotage, and even violence to maintain control, and some fail to deliver on their promises. Moreover, patrons are oftentimes unaccountable for their actions. Thus, clientelistic relationships are often corrupt and unfair, thereby obstructing the processes of implementing true sustainability.