by Simon
An entitlement that the PLP should govern in perpetuity and a bizarre notion that it is traitorous for the Leader of the PLP to be challenged from within his own party. It is precisely this entitlement mentality that Prime Minister Ingraham was mocking in the House of Assembly, when he advised Mr. Christie to crush his opponents, utilizing all the tools at his disposal to so do.
•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.
Despite his talk, talk and more talk, Perry Christie is not a reformer, an innovator nor a paradigm shifter as he endlessly brags. Just the opposite: he continues to preside over and protect hidebound and entrenched interests within the PLP.
When Sir Lynden handed over leadership of the PLP to Mr. Christie following its crushing 1997 electoral defeat, he further bequeathed to the party’s only third leader in over half a century, a political culture characterized by a sense of entitlement.An entitlement that the PLP should govern in perpetuity and a bizarre notion that it is traitorous for the Leader of the PLP to be challenged from within his own party. It is precisely this entitlement mentality that Prime Minister Ingraham was mocking in the House of Assembly, when he advised Mr. Christie to crush his opponents, utilizing all the tools at his disposal to so do.
How much of this Mr. Christie took seriously or how much of it he realized was satire is anyone’s guess. Whichever is the case, Mr. Christie has proven incapable of becoming his own man and stepping out of the shadows of Sir Lynden to reform a party that in the minds of many voters has refused to purge itself of the worst characteristics and baser instincts of the Pindling era.
Even if he felt beholden to Sir Lynden’s loyalists upon becoming Leader, the tragedy is that Mr. Christie refused to overhaul the PLP after it was given a second chance following an overwhelming electoral mandate in 2002.
FAILURE
Sadly, during his brief stint as Prime Minister from 2002 to 2007, Mr. Christie’s failure to seize this political space and opening to reform his party was one of the decisive factors leading to his speedy return to opposition.
Many independent voters and FNMs who stayed home or voted against their party in 2002, once again supported the FNM in 2007, having drawn the conclusion that Mr. Christie had not simply thrown in his lot with the old guard and non-reformist elements of the PLP out of temporary political expediency.
Rather, the aforementioned voters came to appreciate what B. J. Nottage and other reformists in the PLP had concluded about Perry Gladstone Christie some time ago: He is the modern face and embodiment of a still dominant element in the PLP resistant to genuine change and a more democratic ethos within the party.
It is no coincidence that among Mr. Christie’s fervent backers in the PLP, including some who served in his cabinet, are among the more scandal-ridden personalities in the party, whose outrageous behaviour Mr. Christie simply ignored or failed to seriously address or stymie.
It is in the self-interest of these elements to vigorously back for Leader a man who mouths platitudes about good governance while pretending not to see the dastardly deeds of some of his main cheerleaders and attack dogs, while he floats above the fray. The reality is quite different than the fiction Mr. Christie would have voters believe of him as the Great Reformer, dedicated to innovation and change.
Mr. Christie has not only failed to reform the party, he has doubled down on entrenching his power by dramatically increasing the number of Stalwart Councillors, which now hover between 1500 to 2000 depending on who’s counting. Conversely, the FNM has 48 Meritorious Council Members (MCMs), the equivalence of a Stalwart Councillor, though its rules allow for 60.
Had Mr. Ingraham attempted to increase the number of the FNM’s MCMs by even half, much less the astronomical numbers Mr. Christie has advanced, he would have been labelled all manner of things, including undemocratic and dictatorial.
DIMINSHED
Yet, Mr. Christie and his backers have in effect dramatically diminished the voting power of party branches and new party activists and participants by putting in place a system that apparatchiks in an old Soviet-styled system would applaud as a brilliant form of party control.
Such a system potentially makes the PLP even more resistant to renewal and reform, and is a marked and undemocratic departure from how political parties in parliamentary democracies tend to operate. It is reminiscent of the super delegate controversy much remarked upon during the fight for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination last year in the United States between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Most would agree that Mr. Christie has some clearly progressive instincts. Unfortunately those instincts have been parlayed into precious few progressive policies and programmes because Mr. Christie’s governing style is irredeemably lacklustre and a seemingly unending exercise of public relations over substance.
It is notable that the Wikipedia article online for Mr. Christie, which appears to have been written by one of his dedicated supporters, comes with this initial advisory dated March 2009: “This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.”
Mr. Christie’s major health care initiative, released on the eve of the last election, seemed unserious in light of questions as to how it was going to be paid for. And his urban renewal programme, which had some success, was not the broader urban revitalization programme for which progressives would have wished.
The programme was often more reliant on stop-gap measures and social Band-Aids® than genuine economic empowerment. It was a useful step in the right direction, not the major progressive and policy advancement it has been billed as.
Now, it is too late. Even if Mr. Christie, as is expected, wins re-election as Leader, he has already squandered rich and extraordinary opportunities to reform and put his imprint on a great party. When the Christie era in the PLP has past, what will he be remembered for? Precious little.
He also squandered much of his precious few years as Prime Minister to do the big progressive things for which the PLP was founded. His assumption that he would be re-elected in 2007 was wrong. And, his gamble that 2012 may be another good year for him may be equally wrong.
In terms of party reform and progressive governance, at minimum, Mr. Christie is a very disappointing figure and at worse, a tragic one: a man gifted with potential and high office, who failed to use his gifts and the resources at his command to make extraordinary changes few of us have the opportunity to so do.
This is what much of the fight between Perry Christie and B. J. Nottage is about. On the one hand, a man with the resources to do tremendous things, but who repeatedly proved incapable of rising to the occasion, and on the other, a man with deep reformist instincts who went so far as to form a party to pursue his own personal and national ambitions, but who may never get a chance to attempt genuine reform of the PLP while pursuing a progressive national agenda.
UNREALIZED
If Dr. Nottage were to somehow win, his ambitions may remain unrealized. The recriminations after such a surprising win would shake the PLP to its core. If Mr. Christie wins by a comfortable margin, the reformers will realize that real change in the PLP may have to wait for some time. This could lead to the forced or voluntary exile of some PLPs, some of whom may opt to become independents, with others migrating to the FNM.
Of course, there are other possible scenarios, including a close vote for Leader in which Mr. Christie wins for now, but is still under threat prior to a 2012 general election. In essence, through another convention, a negotiated departure or some other measure, Mr. Christie could still be removed as Leader of the PLP.
Unlike last time, which was probably a major strategic blunder on his part, Dr. Nottage is not going to leave the PLP. He and others who are still struggling to move the party past the worst days of the Pindling era and the lacklustre days of the Christie period, will be an unyielding tinderbox under Mr. Christie’s princely throne.
After some island travel this past weekend and as he prepares for the 51st PLP convention, Mr. Christie may be feeling confident that he can retain his crown. But it will be a battered and bruised crown. Moreover, there is no guarantee that he will be able to retain it in the two and a half years until he has to go head to head with the man who now wears the crown that comes with the ultimate prize in our political system.
Even if he felt beholden to Sir Lynden’s loyalists upon becoming Leader, the tragedy is that Mr. Christie refused to overhaul the PLP after it was given a second chance following an overwhelming electoral mandate in 2002.
FAILURE
Sadly, during his brief stint as Prime Minister from 2002 to 2007, Mr. Christie’s failure to seize this political space and opening to reform his party was one of the decisive factors leading to his speedy return to opposition.
Many independent voters and FNMs who stayed home or voted against their party in 2002, once again supported the FNM in 2007, having drawn the conclusion that Mr. Christie had not simply thrown in his lot with the old guard and non-reformist elements of the PLP out of temporary political expediency.
Rather, the aforementioned voters came to appreciate what B. J. Nottage and other reformists in the PLP had concluded about Perry Gladstone Christie some time ago: He is the modern face and embodiment of a still dominant element in the PLP resistant to genuine change and a more democratic ethos within the party.
It is no coincidence that among Mr. Christie’s fervent backers in the PLP, including some who served in his cabinet, are among the more scandal-ridden personalities in the party, whose outrageous behaviour Mr. Christie simply ignored or failed to seriously address or stymie.
It is in the self-interest of these elements to vigorously back for Leader a man who mouths platitudes about good governance while pretending not to see the dastardly deeds of some of his main cheerleaders and attack dogs, while he floats above the fray. The reality is quite different than the fiction Mr. Christie would have voters believe of him as the Great Reformer, dedicated to innovation and change.
Mr. Christie has not only failed to reform the party, he has doubled down on entrenching his power by dramatically increasing the number of Stalwart Councillors, which now hover between 1500 to 2000 depending on who’s counting. Conversely, the FNM has 48 Meritorious Council Members (MCMs), the equivalence of a Stalwart Councillor, though its rules allow for 60.
Had Mr. Ingraham attempted to increase the number of the FNM’s MCMs by even half, much less the astronomical numbers Mr. Christie has advanced, he would have been labelled all manner of things, including undemocratic and dictatorial.
DIMINSHED
Yet, Mr. Christie and his backers have in effect dramatically diminished the voting power of party branches and new party activists and participants by putting in place a system that apparatchiks in an old Soviet-styled system would applaud as a brilliant form of party control.
Such a system potentially makes the PLP even more resistant to renewal and reform, and is a marked and undemocratic departure from how political parties in parliamentary democracies tend to operate. It is reminiscent of the super delegate controversy much remarked upon during the fight for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination last year in the United States between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Most would agree that Mr. Christie has some clearly progressive instincts. Unfortunately those instincts have been parlayed into precious few progressive policies and programmes because Mr. Christie’s governing style is irredeemably lacklustre and a seemingly unending exercise of public relations over substance.
It is notable that the Wikipedia article online for Mr. Christie, which appears to have been written by one of his dedicated supporters, comes with this initial advisory dated March 2009: “This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.”
Mr. Christie’s major health care initiative, released on the eve of the last election, seemed unserious in light of questions as to how it was going to be paid for. And his urban renewal programme, which had some success, was not the broader urban revitalization programme for which progressives would have wished.
The programme was often more reliant on stop-gap measures and social Band-Aids® than genuine economic empowerment. It was a useful step in the right direction, not the major progressive and policy advancement it has been billed as.
Now, it is too late. Even if Mr. Christie, as is expected, wins re-election as Leader, he has already squandered rich and extraordinary opportunities to reform and put his imprint on a great party. When the Christie era in the PLP has past, what will he be remembered for? Precious little.
He also squandered much of his precious few years as Prime Minister to do the big progressive things for which the PLP was founded. His assumption that he would be re-elected in 2007 was wrong. And, his gamble that 2012 may be another good year for him may be equally wrong.
In terms of party reform and progressive governance, at minimum, Mr. Christie is a very disappointing figure and at worse, a tragic one: a man gifted with potential and high office, who failed to use his gifts and the resources at his command to make extraordinary changes few of us have the opportunity to so do.
This is what much of the fight between Perry Christie and B. J. Nottage is about. On the one hand, a man with the resources to do tremendous things, but who repeatedly proved incapable of rising to the occasion, and on the other, a man with deep reformist instincts who went so far as to form a party to pursue his own personal and national ambitions, but who may never get a chance to attempt genuine reform of the PLP while pursuing a progressive national agenda.
UNREALIZED
If Dr. Nottage were to somehow win, his ambitions may remain unrealized. The recriminations after such a surprising win would shake the PLP to its core. If Mr. Christie wins by a comfortable margin, the reformers will realize that real change in the PLP may have to wait for some time. This could lead to the forced or voluntary exile of some PLPs, some of whom may opt to become independents, with others migrating to the FNM.
Of course, there are other possible scenarios, including a close vote for Leader in which Mr. Christie wins for now, but is still under threat prior to a 2012 general election. In essence, through another convention, a negotiated departure or some other measure, Mr. Christie could still be removed as Leader of the PLP.
Unlike last time, which was probably a major strategic blunder on his part, Dr. Nottage is not going to leave the PLP. He and others who are still struggling to move the party past the worst days of the Pindling era and the lacklustre days of the Christie period, will be an unyielding tinderbox under Mr. Christie’s princely throne.
After some island travel this past weekend and as he prepares for the 51st PLP convention, Mr. Christie may be feeling confident that he can retain his crown. But it will be a battered and bruised crown. Moreover, there is no guarantee that he will be able to retain it in the two and a half years until he has to go head to head with the man who now wears the crown that comes with the ultimate prize in our political system.
It seems they need one more thorough election trouncing, then they may see the writing on the wall! The Do Nothing PLP cannot govern, they have made that clear. We need a viable opposition though, so a change in the party or a new party is needed. If allowed to stay in power too long, the FNM will become as corrupt and arrogant as the PLP did. The signs are already showing at times. Without a viable opposition, they will just get worse. Country above party people and that means ACCOUNTABILITY for both sides!
Posted by: Erasmus Folly | October 30, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Maybe we need to have a reform PLP party a party that truly reflects the up and coming generation of progressive people.
Posted by: Fran | November 01, 2009 at 01:35 PM