by Larry Smith
"My name is Hubert Ingraham - I don't need nothing before that." - Hubert Ingraham, rejecting a possible knighthood on his retirement from public life
The first time Hubert Ingraham came across my radar (and I have met him only two or three times in the past 30 years) was in a lawyer friend's office when Ingraham was chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.
My lawyer friend was engaged in a telephone argument with Ingraham over citizenship for Belongers, a hot button issue of the 1970s and 80s. The argument was of interest to me because my father was a Belonger - having been posted here in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War.
He married an out island commissioner's daughter on Harbour Island in 1944, and I was one of the babies produced in the boom years that followed the war. But my father had been denied his constitutional right to citizenship by the post-Independence PLP government.
The status of white "foreigners" was a huge issue in those days, for understandable but nonetheless objectionable reasons. But that's more than enough about me - this article is about Hubert Alexander Ingraham.
I clearly recall my exasperated lawyer friend telling Ingraham sarcastically that when the Free National Movement came to power they would revoke his citizenship retroactively. The prospect of such a government seemed almost laughable at the time, but the lawyer eventually became a prominent supporter of Ingraham - after he was kicked out of the PLP to become the first FNM prime minister.
An apprenticed lawyer himself, Ingraham had been picked as a rising star in the PLP by his mentor, Sir Lynden Pindling. In 1977 he was elected by his home constituency of Cooper's Town in North Abaco, and was named to the cabinet in 1982.
He was clearly on a trajectory in the party, but within two years he was fired by Pindling for taking a principled stand against government corruption revealed by the 1984 Commission of Inquiry. In 1986 he was expelled from the party, but managed to retain his Cooper's Town seat in the 1987 general election, running as an independent.
The late 80s were the prelude to a historic realignment of Bahamian politics in which Ingraham played a pivotal role. After the PLP's 1967 victory, it took more than a generation to reconcile the conflicts produced by centuries of racial exclusion. This difficult process had been launched by another ex-PLP firebrand named Cecil Wallace Whitfield, who had earned his credentials in the struggle for majority rule.
I first met Ingraham during this formative period, when he was trying to figure out what to do with his political life. It was no more than a brief greeting in a broad-based political meeting at his home. When two white guys walked in, Fred Mitchell (who at the time was on the outs with Pindling's PLP) moaned "oh no" in disgust - a treasured memory. Arthur Hanna was there too (he had resigned from the cabinet after 1984), but he cheerfully offered me a drink.
Listening to the views shuttling back and forth across the patio over the relative wisdom of forming a third political force or joining the existing opposition marked the zenith of my involvement in party politics, from that time to the present. It soon became clear that while Whitfield may have launched the much-hoped for political realignment when he walked out of the PLP in 1970, it would take Ingraham to complete it.
In his 1970 address to the PLP convention, Whitfield said "Let no man deceive himself that the same spirits which flared up in 1955 and thereafter will not flare up again." He was right. By 1990, the spirit of healthy dissent in the country was growing exponentially, even as Whitfield's own health deteriorated.
That spring, Ingraham made his choice. In early May he was nominated by Orville Turnquest and Maurice Moore for the leadership of the FNM and was elected unanimously. Sir Cecil lauded Ingraham's "rare qualities of courage, tenacity, vision and leadership", before succumbing to lung cancer in a Miami hospital on May 9. Two weeks later, Ingraham replaced him as leader of the opposition in parliament.
"I am your delivery boy," he told ecstatic FNM supporters, referring to Prime Minister Pindling's contemptuous effort to belittle him. "Delivering a message of hope for a better way - a way of truth, integrity and accountability in public affairs."
The rhetoric sounds a little over the top today, but only because of the changes Ingraham wrought after he came to power. And ever since 1992, the PLP have been trying to turn the tables on him - seething at the fact that he was able to upset their apple cart.
Like Whitfield, Ingraham accused the PLP of betraying its principles, and seeking to put in place "a more sinister system of social and economic enslavement" than the old UBP regime it had fought so hard against for years before winning the government.
Chief among the opposition's complaints at that time was the PLP's stranglehold on information - through direct control of Bahamas Information Services and ZNS, and indirect control of the Nassau Guardian, which was heavily influenced by lucrative government ad contracts. Only the Tribune stood in the way as an independent voice.
This became a big issue in the 1992 general election campaign, when the FNM found itself not only shut out of ZNS newscasts but unable to even buy airtime on the publicly-owned broadcasting station to present its views to the electorate. And to close the loop, Pindling and the PLP tried to criminalize overseas broadcasting by Bahamians to the Bahamas.
If the FNM were elected, Ingraham promised at the time, "we will begin to reconstruct every defective part of our society, but above all we will restore our democratic principles and institutions…I will do everything to shape a political culture and to influence a social environment which will ensure equal opportunity for every Bahamian. I will not discriminate."
In addition to the PLP's "Big Brother is watching you" authoritarian style, the country was running out of economic options due to corruption and mismanagement. Hotels were selling out, no foreign investment was coming in, and there were widespread fears of devaluation. Pindling didn't seem to notice - he made 17 overseas trips in 1992 alone.
Over the years, most Bahamians had tolerated the PLP's failings out of gratitude for Pindling's defeat of the hated Bay Street regime. But after a quarter century their patience was wearing thin. And on August 19, 1992 the FNM was swept to power in an election that was just as historic as the PLP victory over the UBP in 1967.
So it is perfectly fair to place Ingraham's role in confirming our two-party democracy on the same level as Pindling's achievement of majority rule.
One of the first things Ingraham did as prime minister was break ZNS' monopoly on broadcasting - licensing private radio stations for the first time in 1993, followed by the introduction of cable television in 1994, and creating a whole new industry. This was one of the most far-reaching policy decisions in Bahamian history.
After decisively turning around the economy in its first term - selling off government hotels, repealing the Immovable Property Act and facilitating Sol Kerzner's redevelopment of Paradise Island among other things - Ingraham and the FNM were rewarded with a landslide victory in the 1997 general election.
But after a decade in power the pendulum began to swing. Although no term limit had been legislated, Ingraham made good on his 1992 promise to demit office after 10 consecutive years and went back to his law practice. But such a leadership transition in a Bahamian political party had never been attempted before, and the FNM was decimated in the 2002 election.
So Ingraham was called back to lead the party into the 2007 election, which he won by a small margin. It was the first time that a sitting government had been turfed out after only a single term, and during good economic times as well.
Ingraham made this year's election a referendum on his leadership, but despite an enviable track record, he lost - and immediately resigned as party leader. Last week he tendered his resignation as an MP too.
Nathaniel Lewis put it this way in the Freeport News, "The FNM made the mistake of making the election about Hubert Ingraham's leadership versus the party's ideas. They placed the results of the election squarely on one man's shoulders as opposed to it being about the vision they had for the country...The PLP was able to capitalize on this greatly, by branding Ingraham as a heartless dictator."
By all accounts, Ingraham's reputation as a bulldozer, with the steel to get things done in our often shambolic system, is well-earned. But as one former FNM candidate told me, "it is not good enough any longer for people to know that the leader is effective at getting things done. They need to know why things have to be done a certain way, and they need to have their reasonable opinions taken into account. These public expectations have been raised by Ingraham himself."
The cavalier charge of 'dictator' is based on Ingraham's brusque and bull-headed style, which clearly offends some. But that is more of a personality trait than a governance policy. The supreme irony of media boss Wendall Jones excoriating the former prime minister for commenting on public affairs at his recent press conference is a clear case in point.
Jones, you will recall, was put in court not so long ago for non-payment of taxes and license fees, but that is hardly evidence of dictatorial tendencies on the part of Ingraham. On the other hand, Pindling and the PLP really were moving the Bahamas towards a totalitarian society - you can see those tendencies re-emerging among some party spokesmen today. And we doubt Jones will have to worry about court dates for the next five years.
Ingraham's greatest achievement was to unlock broadcasting, curb endemic victimization, and enable freedom of speech. In the process, he completed the realignment of Bahamian politics so that all sections of society could participate comfortably. In other words, the "rude, barefoot boy from Abaco" made it possible for both Wendall Jones and myself to comment on public affairs today.
It goes without saying that Hubert Ingraham should have the same opportunity. We look forward to his future interventions in public life.
As one insider told me recently, "Ingraham was able to deal with complex issues of race and economic disparity, and his role in confirming the two-party system was critical. He had a core belief in democracy and an ability to handle criticism without seeking to victimize those who attacked him. He was fair in trying to govern for everybody, and he was good at crafting pragmatic solutions to complex problems."
More importantly, he did not sell the country out to foreign gangsters - as both the old PLP and the UBP had done in their day. Ingraham left office with clean hands, and that in itself is a magnificent achievement.
I first met Ingraham during this formative period, when he was trying to figure out what to do with his political life. It was no more than a brief greeting in a broad-based political meeting at his home. When two white guys walked in, Fred Mitchell (who at the time was on the outs with Pindling's PLP) moaned "oh no" in disgust - a treasured memory. Arthur Hanna was there too (he had resigned from the cabinet after 1984), but he cheerfully offered me a drink.
Listening to the views shuttling back and forth across the patio over the relative wisdom of forming a third political force or joining the existing opposition marked the zenith of my involvement in party politics, from that time to the present. It soon became clear that while Whitfield may have launched the much-hoped for political realignment when he walked out of the PLP in 1970, it would take Ingraham to complete it.
In his 1970 address to the PLP convention, Whitfield said "Let no man deceive himself that the same spirits which flared up in 1955 and thereafter will not flare up again." He was right. By 1990, the spirit of healthy dissent in the country was growing exponentially, even as Whitfield's own health deteriorated.
That spring, Ingraham made his choice. In early May he was nominated by Orville Turnquest and Maurice Moore for the leadership of the FNM and was elected unanimously. Sir Cecil lauded Ingraham's "rare qualities of courage, tenacity, vision and leadership", before succumbing to lung cancer in a Miami hospital on May 9. Two weeks later, Ingraham replaced him as leader of the opposition in parliament.
"I am your delivery boy," he told ecstatic FNM supporters, referring to Prime Minister Pindling's contemptuous effort to belittle him. "Delivering a message of hope for a better way - a way of truth, integrity and accountability in public affairs."
The rhetoric sounds a little over the top today, but only because of the changes Ingraham wrought after he came to power. And ever since 1992, the PLP have been trying to turn the tables on him - seething at the fact that he was able to upset their apple cart.
Like Whitfield, Ingraham accused the PLP of betraying its principles, and seeking to put in place "a more sinister system of social and economic enslavement" than the old UBP regime it had fought so hard against for years before winning the government.
Chief among the opposition's complaints at that time was the PLP's stranglehold on information - through direct control of Bahamas Information Services and ZNS, and indirect control of the Nassau Guardian, which was heavily influenced by lucrative government ad contracts. Only the Tribune stood in the way as an independent voice.
This became a big issue in the 1992 general election campaign, when the FNM found itself not only shut out of ZNS newscasts but unable to even buy airtime on the publicly-owned broadcasting station to present its views to the electorate. And to close the loop, Pindling and the PLP tried to criminalize overseas broadcasting by Bahamians to the Bahamas.
If the FNM were elected, Ingraham promised at the time, "we will begin to reconstruct every defective part of our society, but above all we will restore our democratic principles and institutions…I will do everything to shape a political culture and to influence a social environment which will ensure equal opportunity for every Bahamian. I will not discriminate."
In addition to the PLP's "Big Brother is watching you" authoritarian style, the country was running out of economic options due to corruption and mismanagement. Hotels were selling out, no foreign investment was coming in, and there were widespread fears of devaluation. Pindling didn't seem to notice - he made 17 overseas trips in 1992 alone.
Over the years, most Bahamians had tolerated the PLP's failings out of gratitude for Pindling's defeat of the hated Bay Street regime. But after a quarter century their patience was wearing thin. And on August 19, 1992 the FNM was swept to power in an election that was just as historic as the PLP victory over the UBP in 1967.
So it is perfectly fair to place Ingraham's role in confirming our two-party democracy on the same level as Pindling's achievement of majority rule.
One of the first things Ingraham did as prime minister was break ZNS' monopoly on broadcasting - licensing private radio stations for the first time in 1993, followed by the introduction of cable television in 1994, and creating a whole new industry. This was one of the most far-reaching policy decisions in Bahamian history.
After decisively turning around the economy in its first term - selling off government hotels, repealing the Immovable Property Act and facilitating Sol Kerzner's redevelopment of Paradise Island among other things - Ingraham and the FNM were rewarded with a landslide victory in the 1997 general election.
But after a decade in power the pendulum began to swing. Although no term limit had been legislated, Ingraham made good on his 1992 promise to demit office after 10 consecutive years and went back to his law practice. But such a leadership transition in a Bahamian political party had never been attempted before, and the FNM was decimated in the 2002 election.
So Ingraham was called back to lead the party into the 2007 election, which he won by a small margin. It was the first time that a sitting government had been turfed out after only a single term, and during good economic times as well.
Ingraham made this year's election a referendum on his leadership, but despite an enviable track record, he lost - and immediately resigned as party leader. Last week he tendered his resignation as an MP too.
Nathaniel Lewis put it this way in the Freeport News, "The FNM made the mistake of making the election about Hubert Ingraham's leadership versus the party's ideas. They placed the results of the election squarely on one man's shoulders as opposed to it being about the vision they had for the country...The PLP was able to capitalize on this greatly, by branding Ingraham as a heartless dictator."
By all accounts, Ingraham's reputation as a bulldozer, with the steel to get things done in our often shambolic system, is well-earned. But as one former FNM candidate told me, "it is not good enough any longer for people to know that the leader is effective at getting things done. They need to know why things have to be done a certain way, and they need to have their reasonable opinions taken into account. These public expectations have been raised by Ingraham himself."
The cavalier charge of 'dictator' is based on Ingraham's brusque and bull-headed style, which clearly offends some. But that is more of a personality trait than a governance policy. The supreme irony of media boss Wendall Jones excoriating the former prime minister for commenting on public affairs at his recent press conference is a clear case in point.
Jones, you will recall, was put in court not so long ago for non-payment of taxes and license fees, but that is hardly evidence of dictatorial tendencies on the part of Ingraham. On the other hand, Pindling and the PLP really were moving the Bahamas towards a totalitarian society - you can see those tendencies re-emerging among some party spokesmen today. And we doubt Jones will have to worry about court dates for the next five years.
Ingraham's greatest achievement was to unlock broadcasting, curb endemic victimization, and enable freedom of speech. In the process, he completed the realignment of Bahamian politics so that all sections of society could participate comfortably. In other words, the "rude, barefoot boy from Abaco" made it possible for both Wendall Jones and myself to comment on public affairs today.
It goes without saying that Hubert Ingraham should have the same opportunity. We look forward to his future interventions in public life.
As one insider told me recently, "Ingraham was able to deal with complex issues of race and economic disparity, and his role in confirming the two-party system was critical. He had a core belief in democracy and an ability to handle criticism without seeking to victimize those who attacked him. He was fair in trying to govern for everybody, and he was good at crafting pragmatic solutions to complex problems."
More importantly, he did not sell the country out to foreign gangsters - as both the old PLP and the UBP had done in their day. Ingraham left office with clean hands, and that in itself is a magnificent achievement.
I enjoy your in-depth historical perspective of how you became a big fan and advocate for Mr. Ingraham’s sainthood bid. I'll preface my opinion with this...I have read your articles/opinions on this blog in hopes of finding commentary that is objective, even-handed, and allows me to see the full picture. Your knowledge of the political history and landscape is deep but it hard to get an un-skewed picture of it. This is a nice advocacy piece to highlight the positives that Mr. Ingraham brought to the Bahamian Diaspora. Greta job Mr. Ingraham. Well done. We cannot deny the fact that he has done his part to move the Bahamas forward. All of these men have positives and negatives, but Mr. Ingraham seems to be of a different lot. I know of many who have not been on his “good” side and have unfairly been victim to his “bad” side. I long for the holistic truth in these articles and sad to say it's just not here, in the Guardian, Tribune, Cable 12 – The Eye Candy Station, nor is it in ZNS (we know that of course). Mr. Ingraham had his share of negatives. He led/governed just like his mentor, like a dictator. L.O. was Papa Doc, Ingraham was Baby Doc. Don’t know where Mr. Christie will fall when it’s all said and done.
Posted by: coakleysd | July 25, 2012 at 04:13 PM
Great article Larry.
Posted by: Peter Barrat | July 25, 2012 at 10:16 PM
may I congratulate you on yet another excellent column that focuses on accuracy, relevance and an unbiased rendering of the topic rather than the usual pandering to some ill-conceived notion of what 'people' want to hear or who they need to impress. It is always encouraging to know that when an issue of national importance becomes contentious or clouded by misinformation, we can inevitably rely on you to set the record straight. Let us hope that Bahamians, particularly the ones under 40, pay attention to it before the truth of the way the Bahamas was run pre- 1992 becomes a figment of our imaginations.
Posted by: Lindsey Cancino | July 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM
This was one hell of story and I loved it!!! Well done!!!
Posted by: Sinclair E. Crawley-Jones | July 25, 2012 at 10:19 PM
A very fair assessment of HAI's legacy. Thanks, Larry, as usual!
Posted by: nicolette bethel | July 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Your article encourages me to share a true story about my little grand-niece who lives in West End, Grand Bahama - five-year-old Deveigh Turnquest, a student at St.Paul's College. Her Social Study exam question was a multiple choice: Who is the
Prime Minister of The Bahamas? (a) Rt. Hon. Perry Christie, (b) Sir Lynden Pindling & (c) Rt. Hon. Hubert Ingraham.
Lil' Deveigh circled C for the answer, knowing well that was the WRONG ANSWER. Lil' Deveigh tearfully expressed to her mother that she loved "Papa" Hubert Ingraham & preferred not to circle the Rt. Hon. Perry Christie and accepted her loss of points on her exam.
I do hope you can share this because I think it significant for a child to be able to appreciate a leader like Mr Ingraham.
Posted by: Dawn Bethel | July 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed your latest submission on Ingraham. It is a classic. I just thought I that I should commend you for it. As a 13-year-old living in the PLP bastion of North Andros in 1992, I was overjoyed that the FNM had finally won the government. I cannot tell you how happy I was. That date (August 19) is just as important as January 10, as far as I am concerned. Ingraham, despite his flaws, is the greatest prime minister this country has ever had. Thank you again for the article. It is simply a very good read.
Posted by: kevin evans | July 27, 2012 at 08:16 AM
I disagree with your comparison of the Pindling victory vs. the Ingraham triumph. Without Pindling, Ingraham would not have been possible; they simply cannot be equated. Nonetheless, Mr. Ingraham's contributions, good and bad, have made us a better country, although a more divided one.
Another thing, the FNM's loss in 2002 was not the result of Bahamian unfamiliarity with the transition of power, but of genuine dissatisfaction with the FNM, a public sympathetic to the so-called "new" PLP after the death of the former Prime Minister and of course the albatross of youth and incompetence in the new FNM leader.
Mr Ingraham's vision failed the country at this most crucial time. His focus on roads, the new port and BTC, to the exclusion of social initiatives, sealed his fate. The FNM's cavalier dismissal of crime as "criminals killing criminals" was indicative of its detachment from the reality of Bahamian life; Imgraham paid for that detachment with his job.
And you have been unfair to Mr. Jones. His complaint was not that Mr. Ingraham commented on public affairs, but that his comments were crass, confrontational, self-serving and distinctly unstatesmanlike. Ingraham was still campaigning long after the last shot had been fired. It seems strange to laud a man for freeing the airwaves, only to criticize those who used their new found freedom.
But all said, I agree with your friend who commented that perhaps Mr. Ingraham fell short of the democratic standard that he himself set. I think that the trials ahead are fewer because of Ingraham's leadership and I trust that we can say the same when Mr Christie leaves public life.
Posted by: Ricardo Rolle | July 27, 2012 at 12:55 PM
There were several factors that led to the FNM defeat in 2002 - some of which you have listed - but this particular analysis was focused on leadership issues.
Obviously, one came before the other, but I place Ingraham's and Pindling's achievements on the same level because without either of them (or individuals like them) we would not have a functioning democracy.
That is the whole point of my article.
To say that Ingraham left the country more divided is like saying Pindling divided the country by overturning white supremacy.
I did not think Ingraham's comments at his press conference were as (you say) Jones depicted them. And I wonder if you recall how long the PLP campaigned after the FNM won the 2007 election? Initially, they refused to accept that they had lost.
I could agree that his remarks were "unstatesmanlike", but there is plenty of time for that.
Posted by: larry smith | July 27, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Thanks Larry for having the courage of your convictions, regardless of the political climate.
Posted by: Laura Siddons | July 27, 2012 at 10:01 PM
I've always said that the philosophy of the Progressive Liberal Party is 1 step shy from communism.
So while i'm quite appreciative of SLOP leadership in getting us out of slavery...he didn't really lead us into the Promise Land either. He lead us back into slavery....just with a fancy and shiny new name: "Progressive Liberal Party". It was more like the Regressive Conservative Party. It's vision was "Get white man out of power" and it's mission statement was 'your government will take care of you'.
that was NEVER the case for the FNM and its Leader Hubert Alexander Ingraham. They lead us out of "victimization" into the land of FREE speech, FREE press, and a FREE spirit to do whatever you wanted to do within the limits of the law without having to worry about the government coming to look to find you. Thats what the FREE National Movement was all about.
Posted by: Danae O'Brien | July 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM
I entered front-line politics because of the courageous stand Hubert Ingraham took, which caused his expulsion from the Progressive Liberal Party. I vividly recall offering my support for him following that fateful period.
HAI has the unique ability to permit representation and service to fuse. He recognised, acknowledged and nurtured the necessity to be relevant to one's constituents and mindful of ministerial obligations.
His fairness is not credited, but to me is one of his strongest traits. Why else would a politician pave roads in Stafford Creek where his party rarely got 5 per cent of the vote?
This abiding sense of fairness was evident and manifested over and over. It was most visible to me during the process of the Planning and Subdivision Act, the Forestry Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Even in things not done or left incompleted, HAI allowed national issues full expression and the opportunity to gel and fuse or fizzle.
He is a man who demanded one's best and delivered his best. I am forever grateful for his example, support and service.
Posted by: earl deveaux | July 28, 2012 at 05:05 PM