Bahama Pundit is a group weblog that publishes the work of top Bahamian commentators. We welcome your feedback.
You may link to this site but no material may be reproduced without permission.
It is good to give thanks. Thus did the PLP brass gather in church Sunday past to celebrate the first anniversary of its election to office last May. Verily, the PLP might have also invoked the patron saints of lost and hopeless causes given the abysmal record of its first 100 and now 365 days and counting.
Addressing a less than overflowing crowd at the service, Prime Minister Perry Christie struggled to offer any significant accomplishments even as he sought to lift the mood of various disconsolate and frustrated party members. While church is a place of hope, many have lost hope in Christie.
If a day can be a lifetime in politics, what a seeming lifetime it has felt like for scores of Bahamians over the past year given the PLP’s charter of unfulfilled hope and broken promises. And, oh the blunders.
A national survey to gauge the public’s views of the party’s major blunders since 7 May would likely produce seven times seven. Though not exhaustive, the seven outlined here showcase a pattern of blunder and a prime minister hardly in command of his freewheeling and chaotic administration.
The extensive commentary on the legacy of former UK Prime Minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher highlights the nature of political leadership.
It is especially worthwhile to consider Lady Thatcher’s triumphs and failures in the context of the transition of political leadership in The Bahamas. A decade out from the 50th anniversary of independence, the country is likely to have as the next prime minister an individual from a new generation of leaders.
The transition may prove more far-reaching than who leads the PLP and the FNM. The shift may include how the two major parties re-imagine themselves to attract not only newer voters, but also a majority of the popular vote, which neither party secured respectively in 2012 and 2007.
Many voters remain ambivalent about the political parties, an ambivalence manifested at the polls last May.
Despite yeoman efforts in the midst of a severe economic downturn, voters handed Ingraham and the FNM electoral defeat. Christie and the PLP were re-elected, but did not get a majority of popular vote, while Branville McCartney’s DNA attracted disaffected and protest votes, costing the FNM a number of seats.
Imagine this two-part scenario, the very implausibility of which makes it even that more instructive.
During a British general election, it is revealed that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the opposition party served in some combination as legal advisor and/or consultant for a company exploring for oil.
Not only is the matter of exploration highly controversial. The politicians mentioned, were they to assume office as prime minister and deputy prime minister, would be key figures in deciding a range of issues for their recent clients.
Pressed to detail the nature of their duties and relationship with the company, including remuneration, the potential numbers one and two in a new administration issue vague comments. Despite a lack of transparency, the leaders claim that there is no conflict of interest.
Though overwhelmingly farcical, the Mid-Year Budget Statement of the PLP Government is nonetheless revealing. It showcased the unshakeably weak performance of Prime Minister Perry Christie when it comes to public administration and the oversight of public finance.
This farce is part of a greater PLP hoax, the magnitude of which is dawning on even some of the party’s more fervent supporters at the 2012 general election.
The Great PLP Hoax comprises at least two major dimensions. First, that Christie would be a different prime minister this time. Second, that the PLP would or could deliver the big-ticket items promised in its, “Charter for Governance” and in speeches made by Christie.
Either of these false premises beggared belief. Taken together, they are as unlikely as the Prime Minister refusing an opportunity to speak if offered a microphone.
Politics is about contrasts and comparisons. Despite the sorry state of the governing party and the disastrous leadership of Perry Christie, the PLP’s secret weapon to keep the Opposition off balance, and to likely win re-election is Dr. Hubert Minnis. The context speaks volumes.
We are at a particular historic moment. This is our 40th year of independence. The next general election is due by 2017, the half century mark of majority rule.
An ongoing challenge amidst our successes, partial and fulsome, and failures, is to identify and cultivate the quality of leadership in all areas of national life that will help to bolster our success while mitigating and overcoming our failures.
In large measure, today’s crisis of leadership within the major parties is that neither Prime Minister Christie nor Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis possess the vision and imagination or the capacity and complex of skills required to lead the country in meeting considerable challenges and leveraging notable opportunities.
It is often a cliché to speak of a crisis of leadership in the political arena, a claim made by ancients and moderns alike.
And yet, at the start of 2013 and approaching the fortieth anniversary of independence, we are beset by arguably the weakest and most incapable leadership at the helm of the major political parties since 1973.
This is not an argument for a third party, especially as none of the current groupings offer much by way of leadership.
Hands down, the governing Progressive Liberal Party is now led by the most lacklustre and unimpressive prime minister in an independent Bahamas. At the end of last year, Perry Christie was again entertaining audiences with his signature Junkanoo shuffle.
The Christie shuffle is characterized by a frenzy of activity of limited duration, a fit of ersatz passion and performance art, and gyrating in place, giving the appearance of motion. It is a fitting metaphor of his prime ministership since his return to office last May: Plenty activity but little forward motion.
At least Christie is able to project the illusion of leadership, much as the Wizard of Oz projected the illusion of omnipotence, at least for a spell.
For his part, Dr. Hubert Minnis is unable to disguise that he holds the joint distinction as the most unimpressive Leader of the Opposition and as the least capable Leader of the Free National Movement.
The progressive spirit and the movement for racial, gender and economic equality predate the formation of the Progressive Liberal Party in 1953. Over the ensuing decades that spirit and the movement for equality were sometimes advanced by the party, though just as often abandoned or merely tolerated.
The more gradualist, accommodationist and conservative mindset of the PLP’s founders were eventually superseded by a bolder progressive agenda and more aggressive politics thanks in large measure to the National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) and others.
Still, at critical junctures, Sir Lynden Pindling, a product of the relatively small black Bahamian middle class of his day, often proved cautionary and conservative as party leader and as head of government.
It was Sir Milo Butler and others who pushed hardest on the course of direct action which came to be known as Black Tuesday. While visiting London after becoming Premier, Sir Lynden was tentative about a date for independence. It was Arthur Hanna who steeled Pindling’s back and who, among others, insisted on an earlier and firmer date for independence.
Notwithstanding the encomiums by the current PLP leadership of the leaders of the suffragette movement, a number of the leaders were cautious of the PLP for various reasons.
"illegal poaching has put at risk our entire marine resources as it is done without regard to species, maturity or sustainability of the catch. Entire areas are wiped out by the poachers. We need to be serious about protecting this fragile industry so Bahamian fishermen can have a future in it." -- Ryan Pinder, November 2011
"We in the PLP have a comprehensive plan to secure our borders and deal with poaching. We have to do it because its the only way we can ensure that our fisheries and our fishermen are protected." -- Perry Christie, April 2012
Illegal fishing by Dominicans and others was one of the hot-button issues of last year's general election campaign.
Both the PLP and the FNM pledged to upgrade the Defence Force with more marines, ships and aircraft to address poaching. But fiscal realities have forced the government to cancel these proposed investments.
The scale of the problem can be judged from anecdotal evidence provided by fishermen, as well as by politicians - when they are out of power. For example, in 2011 then opposition MP Ryan Pinder (whose family is from the key fishing community of Spanish Wells) told parliament that Bahamians were being shot at by Dominican poachers.
The performances of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are severely wanting on the range of issues related to gambling. Perry Christie’s performance has been abysmal. Dr. Hubert Minnis has been wrong-footed, wobbly and confusing.
Most pronouncements by the government and the opposition respectively have generally proven to be rambling, inconsistent and curiously unreflective, with some exceptions. Thankfully, the debate has been joined by others who have raised critical issues and common concerns.
Two of these are the Anglican and Roman Catholic prelates, both of whom issued pastoral reflections. The latter word is key, as the respective documents were decidedly more reflective, well-researched and deliberative than the hastily concocted announcements by the PLP and the FNM.
This is unsettling as it is the obligation of the government and the opposition to present to the public, policy ideas and the philosophy informing their views on the many issues relative of gambling.
The leadership of both parties bear responsibility for the embarrassing and inexcusable failure to address in a more detailed and thoughtful manner the array of issues related to legalizing gambling. Still, Christie and Minnis bear a particular responsibility.
The roll-out of the government’s web cafe referendum, driven mostly by Christie, ran into a storm of opposition coalescing into a super storm seemingly as quickly as Hurricane Sandy made up its mind and took aim at The Bahamas and the US with dedicated fury.
In the embarrassing climb-down that is his most recent flip-flop on gambling, the Prime Minister desperately sought to make a virtue out of his incompetence and bungling, and that his government likely lacked the legal authority to proceed with a vote that it probably would have lost:
“I am a Prime Minister who listens. And in listening to the still evolving public discourse on the forthcoming referendum it has become clear to me that more time is needed before the Bahamian people are called upon to vote.
“I am supported in this view by the leadership of a broad cross-section of the national community with whom I have been consulting over the past few days.”
That Christie believes that voters are gullible enough to believe such balderdash speaks to his contempt for the common sense of those who see through the farce he is attempting to perpetuate in this whole numbers business. His attempt to describe his latest flip-flop as listening must be an inside joke.
There are reports of private polling to gauge whether the December 3 poll should have been postponed. One wonders whether this figured into its postponement.
Christie may have been listening, but was it mostly to narrow interests who may funnel campaign contributions to his party, as well as those who gave him stunningly poor advice?
