by Simon
•Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com
The then governing Progressive Liberal Party entered the last general election with the theme “No Turning Back”. Yet they fought the last campaign, seemingly more obsessed with its -- and the country’s -- past and less focused on modernizing their vision and capacity to govern.
Had the party been more forward looking, it may have been in the second year of a second term. A few weeks ago, when the country observed the first anniversary of the 2007 General Election, most of the analysis focused on the performance of the governing Free National Movement.
But May 2 may also serve as a critical -- though, perhaps painful -- anniversary for the opposition PLP. Last year the party claimed a record they would have preferred to have avoided. They became the first government in an independent Bahamas to forfeit power after a single term.
Unlike many previous parties in opposition, the PLP has generally resisted retreating into a bunker since their defeat. Perhaps the closeness of both the popular vote and the seat count in the lower chamber has something to do with this state of affairs.
However, the PLP has sometimes been needlessly obstructionist. They have responded vigorously, if not always constructively, to the plans and policies of the current administration. They have also energetically defended their record, though not always convincingly.
Yet the PLP often seems like a ship with multiple captains and navigators, tacking the party in competing directions. If they sail towards the next election highly factionalized, the party may encounter many of the riptides, sandbars and mutinies a disunited opposition did in the 1970s and 1980s.
But the PLP isn’t only at risk of being overshadowed by its own version of the FNM’s dysfunction during those decades. It is also haunted by the spectre of recycling its scandals, poor governance and sense of electoral entitlement from that period.
Following its 1992 defeat, the PLP was almost wiped out in the House of Assembly in 1997, when the FNM captured one of the larger shares of the popular vote in a post-independence Bahamas.
But dissatisfaction with the FNM led to a decisive comeback by the PLP in 2002, with the government losing every New Providence seat, save for Montague, where they also lost massive support.
The story behind the close numbers in 2007, suggests that the FNM made an impressive, though not decisive comeback, while the PLP hemorrhaged support, but kept the loss relatively close.
With the parties at relative parity electorally, one of the tiebreakers may be how well swing voters feel both parties have learned from their mistakes, and how prepared each is to deal with a complex of national challenges.
Because they hold the majority, the FNM has more opportunities to show their stuff. This will determine whether they can secure another term. But the minority PLP also has significant opportunities. This will partially determine how long they will remain Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
To move beyond this uncomfortable moment, the PLP will have to work through the anguishing process of loss experienced by parties when jilted by voters. Grief is a natural reaction to the loss of unrealized hopes, expectations and possibilities.
Psychiatrist John Bowlby’s stages of grief, offers insights into how the PLP is coping with its loss of power and loss of the ability to set and implement the national agenda. Bowlby’s four stages of grief include, shock and denial; volatility; disorganization and despair; and reorganization.
Of course, grief is never this clear-cut. Various elements of the PLP are in different stages of grief, while others career in and out of the various stages.
The PLP’s initial shock and denial are understandable. After all, they enjoyed a commanding majority and had the power of office at their disposal, to wage the last campaign.
The closeness of the vote reinforced the almost unreal nature of the defeat, with many PLPs believing that the numbers would fall their way by May 3rd, 4th, 5th or beyond.
When these hopes faded, the PLP sought relief in the courts by challenging the results of three seats. So began a volatile reaction characterized by anger, frustration, resentment and hurt.
The tactical and time-buying gambit of the court challenges may have been a strategic, expensive and time-losing mistake. Though it briefly rallied die-hard supporters, the general public has grown weary of an election process that was settled more then 365 days and many vote counts ago.
The disorganization in the PLP has been marked by stated and perhaps unstated defection in the persons of two of their House members, including respectively, Kenyatta Gibson and Malcolm Adderley. The former left the party with scathing criticisms of the current leadership.
Former party chairman, Raynard Rigby, though mostly ineffectual in that capacity, made some very effective and telling comments on why the PLP lost and what it needs to do to regain public trust and power.
Despite public displays of unity, the behind-the-scenes infighting is intense, with various power-centres lining up to seize control of the direction and machinery of the party.
The question now is whether the PLP will reorganize in time for the next election which, though due by 2012, could come earlier. To prepare for the next contest, the PLP must transform its “No Turning Back” slogan into a “Moving Forward” mentality.
They should focus on people, policy and vision, and issues of governance. The FNM entered the last campaign with a slate of largely newer and younger candidates.
Likewise, the PLP will need to retire some of its current front bench if it wants to become the new PLP it advertised itself as in 2002. Some of that front bench includes cabinet members left over from the waning days of an embattled Pindling administration.
A recent news story -- suggesting that some fresh faces are opposed to stepping up to the front-line under the current leadership -- does not bode well for the party.
More promising is the emergence of Glenys Hanna-Martin as chairman. Mrs. Hanna-Martin, like her parliamentary colleague Michael Halkitis, represents the new face of a party that sometimes seems more obsessed with its historical record, than in making history.
The PLP must also seriously renew its vision if it is to recapture its progressive and liberal bearings. Their economic model of development, focused on outsized anchor projects was reactionary and regressive.
The party which ushered in majority rule and independence, rushed through an unprecedented concessionary give-away of land, money and tax benefits, which if fully realized, would threaten to relegate Bahamians to second class citizenship in their own country.
Though often marked by political calculation, the PLP did promote a variety of progressive policies, like national health insurance, urban renewal and the development of the Clifton Heritage site.
But their rhetoric on the aforementioned policy ideas never caught up with reality. These programmes were never well thought out and may not have been sustainable and effective in the manner in which they were initially conceptualized.
Part of this failure is a problem that has dogged the PLP for years: incompetent governance. While the PLP and FNM battle over various electoral assets, the FNM maintains a comparative advantage regarding efficiency and effectiveness on issues of competent governance.
A renewed PLP will have to convince voters that it can effectively administer the machinery of government and as with any successful process of grief and recovery, assimilate its painful loss, while resisting the temptation to keep turning back.
The way forward for the PLP is to
"RID" the PLP party of Former PLP Prime Minister Perry G.Christie he's a Known Pussy cat (homosexual).
Hubert is the Man for the Job
FNM for the Poor Man all the way!
PLP CROOKS!
Posted by: A Bahamian | September 24, 2008 at 03:45 PM