by Larry Smith
“Mistaken publications of obituaries aren’t as rare as you might expect,” observes The Phrase Finder website. In 1897, for example, the American writer and humourist Mark Twain famously sent a letter to the New York Journal describing a report of his death as an "exaggeration."
We could say the same about the most recent prognostications on the future of the Progressive Liberal Party. And this is not the first time we have heard them. After the 1997 election - when the Free National Movement won 57.6% of the vote with a turnout of 92% - commentators were convinced that the PLP was headed straight for "the boneyard."
That was only five years after the party had suffered its first and only major defeat in a quarter century of absolute ascendancy under the leadership of the late Sir Lynden Pindling. And it was only five years before it won a stunning landslide upset, taking 51.7% of the vote in a turnout of 89%.
Clearly, as the American writer Will Rogers put it: “Both political parties have their good times and bad times, only they have them at different times.”
The Origins of Party Politics
Formed in 1953 the PLP has the distinction of being the first Bahamian political party to win seats in parliament. Its arch enemy - the white-dominated United Bahamian Party - was created in 1958 in response to the election of six PLP representatives in 1956. The FNM was born following a major split in the PLP in 1970, and absorbed remnants of the disbanded UBP.
Party politics came late to the Bahamas. As an insignificant colonial backwater, we lagged behind other territories in the British West Indies. When economic depression led to labour disturbances in the region during the 1930s the Imperial government appointed a travelling commission to hold public hearings, but we were not on their agenda.
The commission looked at economic, social and political conditions throughout the Caribbean. Its proposals (made public only after the Second World War ended in 1945) ranged from improvements in agriculture to the extension of the franchise, which required the removal of property, income and educational qualifications for voting and for legislative membership.
That such restrictions existed may seem odd to us today, but it was not until 1918 that all men (but only some women) were given the right to vote in Britain - home of the mother of parliaments. And universal suffrage had to wait until 1928. Prior to the First World War, in fact, less than a quarter of the British public could vote due to property qualifications that dated back to feudal times.
But growing prosperity after the Second World War led to "a greater awareness of impotence and exclusion...and an increasingly urgent quest for a political voice." according to historian Michael Craton, in his biography of Sir Lynden Pindling. Craton attributed the formation of the PLP to "the winds of change wafting from a Labour-ruled Britain", as well as to spillover from early stirrings of the American civil rights movement.
Although a proto-party called the Citizens Committee was formed in 1950 by members of the non-white intelligentsia (including Kendal Isaacs, Gerald Cash and Cleveland Eneas), it faded away within three years and was replaced by the PLP - a reformist party that sought to unite all those in opposition to the Bay Street regime. At the time, the country was run by a kitchen-table cabal of white merchants and lawyers under British overlordship.
The PLP was introduced in October 1953 by a group of mixed race, self-educated men who included Henry Taylor, Bill Cartwright and Cyril Stevenson. Their opening manifesto eschewed class and racial warfare, but talked of increasing opportunities for "the small man" - a term which has become ingrained in Bahamian political discourse.
So the PLP became the nationalist party, leading the fight against an authoritarian, race-based regime, and ultimately taking power in 1967. Within six years the party had achieved an orderly transition to independence and it reigned supreme until the fallout from a 1984 commission of inquiry into drug trafficking and corruption indelibly damaged its credibility.
Political Realignment
That fallout led to a serious rupture among party leaders, with cabinet ministers Hubert Ingraham, Perry Christie and Arthur Hanna leaving the PLP because of Sir Lynden's failure to deal forthrightly with corruption issues. This marked the beginning of the PLPs decline as a dominant political force.
The late 1980s were a time of political ferment. In a 1991 speech Perry Christie described the hoops that the three ex-PLPs went through while trying to figure out what to do with their political futures: "We held public meetings, and meetings involving large numbers of Bahamians in various homes. We discussed frankly with thousands of Bahamians."
Tough Call remembers participating in some of those meetings. It was the first time that the long-term survival of the PLP could plausibly be called into question. The choices on the table were joining the opposition FNM, creating an entirely new political party (informally dubbed the Third Force) or returning to the PLP fold. By 1990 the decisions had been made.
All three of the prodigals considered a new party much too difficult a project from a logistical point of view. Hanna and Christie agreed to bury the hatchet and rejoin the PLP, while Ingraham went on to lead the FNM. He was anointed by a dying Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, one of the party's founders, in the face of stiff opposition from some.
But Ingraham's decision was the tipping point that accelerated an ongoing realignment of Bahamian politics. The exhausted, corrupt and increasingly authoritarian PLP were thrown out in 1992 in an election that was just as historic as the one that had ushered them into power a quarter-century earlier.
And despite Sir Lynden's scornful condemnation of the new administration as an "interim government", the FNM went on to achieve an overwhelming victory in 1997, winning 34 seats to the PLPs six. To his credit, Sir Lynden was philosophical about the defeat (his last electoral foray): "All is not lost. We re-examine and rebuild. We were down before, but never out. We have defeated them before, and we can defeat them again."
The Demise of the PLP
But despite the brave words, many pundits were forecasting the PLPs demise, or at least its reduction to extreme political irrelevance. The victory was so great that concerns were raised about the future of our two-party democracy - even the Tribune feared the FNM could "lose its balance".
And within days of the election, Sir Lynden added to the despair by stepping down after 32 years as party leader, finally conceding that new leadership was needed to resurrect the party's fortunes.
When Perry Christie returned to the PLP as Trade and Industry Minister in 1990, he positioned himself as a "bridge to the 21st century", which unexpectedly turned out to be true. Christie and Dr Bernard Nottage were named co-deputy leaders after 1997. They both called for a new PLP "committed to achievement, integrity and accountability", and acknowledged that new faces, new ideas and new vision were needed to win the next election.
Sir Lynden leaned in favour of Christie, and at the party's first convention after the election the former prodigal was voted in as leader. It was a hinge moment in history. Three years later Pindling was dead of prostate cancer at the age of 70.
In 1998 the PLP suffered another body blow when Nottage resigned in a huff to form a new party - the Coalition for Democratic Reform - taking many liberal foot-soldiers with him. But Christie, then 55, vowed he would become the next prime minister. And - against all the odds - he was proved right.
The Demise of the FNM
The tables turned in 2002, when an electorate of 145,000 gave Christie's PLP 51.7 per cent of the vote to the FNMs 40.8 per cent. The entire FNM cabinet was wiped out, with only seven MPs retaining their seats. And to make matters worse, three FNMs who had split with the party over the leadership struggle were returned as independents, an unprecedented turn of events.
After 10 years in the wilderness, a "fresh wind" had blown a New PLP back into power, something which Bradley Roberts described joyfully as "a glorious moment in Bahamian political history". Nottage and the CDR had absolutely no impact on the election, gaining only a handful of votes overall.
The FNM led by Tommy Turnquest was stunned. Ingraham admitted that a botched leadership succession and a last-minute constitutional referendum that turned voters off had cost the FNM dearly. Christie, meanwhile, promised a government of consultancy and said he would immediately pass a public integrity act to make officials more accountable.
Pierre Dupuch, one of the FNM splitters who came from a family that had been unalterably opposed to the PLP for generations, said he was confident the old PLP was dead. He and former FNM attorney-general Tenneyson Wells, along with Long Island MP Larry Cartwright, became a favoured minority in Parliament, offering tacit support to the PLP.
"I'm exhausted," backbencher Ingraham said before leaving on a 10-day post-election vacation. "But I'll be back."
The Stupid Party
Within five years Nottage had returned to the PLP and the CDR remnant had disbanded to join forces with the FNM. But the May 2007 election made good on Ingraham's promise, and the "New" PLP was turfed out after only one term - an unprecedented outcome for any Bahamian party controlling all the levers of power.
John Stuart Mill once dismissed the British Conservative Party as "the stupid party". And that's the title many pundits are now giving to the PLP. Some say the stupid party will be out of power for a long time as a result of its failure to recast itself. Unfortunately, the New PLP turned out to be much like the Old PLP - supporting a culture of corruption and entitlement, and generally hostile to business or new ideas.
According to one former PLP cabinet minister, "There is a need for change within the PLP. The party cannot face the future without some fundamental reform."
What an extraordinary admission, after the golden opportunity presented in 2002 was so thoroughly wasted. The question is, what does he mean by change? So far we can see plenty of leadership posturing but no attempt at reform, not even self-examination. For two years after the election the PLP kept the partisan fires burning as if they had been cheated out of power. Now they potentially face a future of long-term irrelevance.
According to the Scottish writer John Arbuthnot, “All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.” It remains to be seen whether the PLP will be able to achieve the fundamental reform that it seems to require, or whether it will fatally choke on its own self-delusion.
In the meantime, there are eddies of change swirling about beyond the control of the two major political groupings. The anonymous National Development Party has raised a website that says it is "committed to meet the challenges of the future". A group of intellectuals has formed a "visioning committee" to push for national strategic planning. And a former PLP chairman has released a document that calls for a "national conversation" about the future.
So is the PLP on its deathbed, as some pundits claim? Well, it is foolhardy to make such predictions because in politics events can change everything, a week can become a lifetime, and madness is the rule.
Hi Larry,
You put the readers and possible respondents in a difficult position, indeed!
It's akin to a gun-fighter, throwing the proverbial Colt 45 pistol at the feet of the little farmer boy, begging for him to pick it up for a quick draw shoot out! We all can imagine that how 9 times out of 10 it turns out! LOL....you ask us to either tacitly agree that the PLP is dead in the water for the next general election, or ask for us to hit out at the current FNM government... in power, at that!?!?
Ha! Should anyone fall for such legerdemain? Only if you are emotionally hyper-partisan or believe the total virtues of one side over the other, with ill regard for anything within reason otherwise--at the end of the day, they all turn into the government of the Bahamas!
The political scientist and economist in me, turned blogger, from a deeply academic/observatory position, would dane to give you what I think on the matter as a professional!
But, before that though Larry, them [any party], becoming the government of the Bahamas, depends on their ability--if they don't cheat election day (rolls eyes)-- to speak to the needs of how do WE as a people want to progress.
Have we been progressing to any large extent under any party to what we voted for? Especially since the rise to power of the FNM in 1992 (thusly, recognizing their legitimacy to govern and them winning 2 consecutive terms) to the PLP in 02 and then back to the FNM, now?
The answers are mixed, with more positives from Youri Aramin Kemp as an eternal optimist on any given Sunday! I won't mention any of them now, however....LOL...
In any event--not assuming you are as seemingly hyper-partisan as the previous author Simon appears to be-- I would have to say that both, truthfully, parties, are alive and well. In many different forms and manner of their behaviour!
The PLP has a lot more supporters. This is a rather obvious statement.
The FNM is slightly better organized with access to cash, even before they won the government.
But, the interesting thing here is that “voter's”, do not equate to the truth behind total party supporters en-masse!! This is the real problem for the PLP in the same token as it is a mirage of understandings on behalf of the FNM. Simply, you do not have to vote, every election, to support one party or the other. I admit, it would be better for folks to vote for the party they support, LOL...
They [the PLP] lack the capacity to energize the masses who truly know that their party is a better choice for the Bahamas, right now. As opposed to the FNM, who have a better manner in energizing their folks and depressing the luke-warm voters into "knowing" the PLP is all bad and their supporters knowing their way is the only best way for the country!
In addition to the FNM, they depend on- to make up the numbers on any given election- disgusted PLP's and/or independents, who seek better public and private sector re-distributions; job's, work, contracts, rate cuts on certain items come budget time...etc...
It turns out to an over exuberance of zealousness for different reasons on both sides. But, I wish more observers stick to the "issues" as Dr. Bethel said in an earlier comment, rather than the dynamics of the party personalities and to what they wish things to be.
That makes for a better dialogue I feel, Larry!
If not, it leads to confusions where folks, turned shocked, as did the FNM's in 2002 and the PLP in 2007, where they all thought they had a lock on winning. Only in hindsight, we realize the pundits were not telling the whole truth and “nothing” about the truth-- do help them God!
These so called “silent whispers on gross guesstimations” are fertile bull-fodder for the hyper-partisan and, in a small country like ours, permeates in an anti-socially destructive manner. This feeds the irrational fears, based on warmly welcomed fictions on what it takes to govern and win an election (which are two totally separate issues). This most defiantly feeds the political tribalism. Entrenches ideologies and pervades inconsistencies in economic development.
The USofA has a good control on this type of craziness—it’s called open and transparent government information services adn independence in the data providers. The truth, Larry, should always be discussed in the open, based on hard data.
More importantly, though, this social mix of psycho-political manifestations, lead to authoritarianism...no side would ever feel comfortable that it can depend on the electoral levers. So, they have to win by any means necessary, for only their short term.
While the USofA was creeping towards that [authoritarianism]--to now on the heels of Socialism-- since the 70’s and has sped up in the last decade, developing countries like the Bahamas, are already there!
I don’t know if Obama feels he would live forever as does Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but, also equally disturbing, is this pre-ordained family clique that develops in cultures!?!? Something in which the US democratic situation was supposed to prevent, but you tend to see the same nepotistic behaviour, as every child of a former politician wants to be a politician too!
Is that a socialized inevitability in cultures? Or, is it just gross vanity?
In any case, this is an interesting mix of “politics”- if you would like to call it that- we have in the Bahamas, where the majority party, is never secured a win as much as the party in power!
Amazing!
This means that one can never count any party out in this country.
Take it as you wish!
Youri
http://globalviewtoday.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Youri Kemp | February 28, 2009 at 08:46 AM
Good synopsis Larry, more objective thought is needed if we are to move forward.
Both parties I fear have done a great disservice to the under 40 citizen by effectively ignoring the constitution in many areas.
They tend to reinforce their supposed indispensibility by writing poor legislation when the existing law just needs enforcing.
We are primed to follow any despot that comes along instead of finding strength in the only place it is to be found:
Rule of law.
Also, the control mentality is the last vestige of the colonial mindset we just cannot seem to shake.
It's all about the control.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | February 28, 2009 at 08:47 AM
Good article, Larry.
My take?
1) Neither party can or will reform at this time. The active politicians and political supporters are mired in the practices of the past and, like the Republican party in the last US election, are bereft of ideas for the future, out of touch with the electorate, and barely capable of maintaining the status quo, much less responding to the needs of the 21st century. In order to be nominated to political office, it would appear, one has to cleanse one's brain of original thought, and parrot a party line that was forged in the 1970s and 1980s. (Oh, all right, and the early 1990s, fine.)
2) At the same time, anything can happen. There is a conceptual gulf between the people who are currently leading this country (politicians and civil servants alike) and those people they are supposedly leading, and that disjunction makes it impossible to predict what will happen in either, or any, political party. Bahamians under forty are smarter, less tolerant, and more intelligently critical (some are cynical) than most people over forty expect, and they are as likely to cluster around issues as they are to cluster around personalities. The fact that that has not made much of a difference in elections to this point is more a failure of nerve on the part of voters than anything else; but I doubt that the Obama generation will suffer even that.
Anything can happen. Whether it will depends on who rises up to lead us. The initials they bear will be largely irrelevant.
Posted by: Nico Bethel | February 28, 2009 at 08:48 AM
Obviously you can count many parties out in this country - the CDR and BDM and NDP and SDP spring to mind. But is there any organic reason for the PLP to be in major decline?
Their predicament seems to be due to the fact that they have failed to adequately address the contradictions that arose after 1984.
Despite a lot of talk in 2002, there was no real follow-through. It was, for many, as if the intervening 10 years had never happened.
Here's one analysis: The PLPs unexpected victory in 2002 was the FNMs loss due to arrogance. The PLPs unexpected loss in 2007 was the result of independent swing voters realising their mistake.
Posted by: larry smith | February 28, 2009 at 08:51 AM
My take:
The FNM deserved to lose in 2002 but the PLP did not deserve to win.
The PLP deserved to lose in 2007 but the FNM did not deserve to win.
We shall see if anyone deserves to win this next time.
Posted by: drew Roberts | February 28, 2009 at 01:38 PM
Nico - you forget our conversation.
I think that there is room in the PLP for reform right now. It is evident to everyone in the party that reform is needed, and there is a group from within that represents the 45 and under population that is pushing for this. It takes time and does not happen over night, but I predict, it will start to happen at the next convention.
Posted by: Ryan | March 01, 2009 at 07:31 PM
Hi all,
LOL@Drew! Nice one. Gross Guesstimation, indeed!
Larry: I thought you were refering to the major political parties in the Bahamas--the PLP and the FNM??
There have been numerous smaller parties-- as you mentioned-- but, I took your assessment to be the ones we identify with the most and, more importantly, the ones who held the levers of power at some point and time.
As my honest oppinion, I think we ALL have to get over the election of 2007. The ones who won and the ones who lost!
Basking, or, on the other side, wallowing, in the loss/win, is soooooo non-productive. Move forward, Larry!
But, just to add some contect to the issues, the FNM lost more embarrasingly in 2002 and many thought that they were down for the count, for good. This was not the case at all and I don't know why people thought that!?!?
With that, I don't even think anyone truly knows, why they lost in 2002 to begin with; some blame the refferendum, which is not a big enough issue as the reccession and the banking fiasco, brought by the OECD, which put a severe strain on resources in the Bahamas.
In contrast, I never thought the PLP would be a one termer, but never thought that the FNM was down and out--chances did get a little better when PM Ingraham came back, of course.
The PLP lost by a few seats, and we are prepared to count them out more than we did the FNM in 2002?
I don't see the equivalence!?!
In fact, unless anyone here has a crystal ball, no one knows what's going to happen--or, so it seems!
You can't count either one of them out at any time...one reason being; they all know how it is to be in power and run this country. Something in which the other smaller parties, do not have in common with the two. As long as no one can re-write history in that regard, there will always be a viable, alternative to the government in power--who ever it may be at the time.
Also, and take no offence, I find this excerpt from your comment: "Here's one analysis: The PLPs unexpected victory in 2002 was the FNMs loss due to arrogance. The PLPs unexpected loss in 2007 was the result of independent swing voters realising their mistake."..more of a statement, rather than analytical.
As for analysis, what about that post election report the PLP did after they lost? They found out allot of things about attitudes towards politics in the Bahamas.
I have never heard of any political party in the Bahamas, taking that type of scientific approach.
That's what I'm talking about; quit with these blanket statements and gross guesstimations, based on whispers of innuendo and, rather, get into some true insight on the issues based on information and hard data.
Because-- and we have seen this in many different countries and not just the Bahamas-- when your "ideas/ideals" start to not pan out as you would want them to, you in turn start doing and saying things, to make those ideas/ideals fit the world you would wish for it to be--which leads to a whole myriad of issues, overhyped and over-stressed, as I mentioned in my previous response.
It would serve any political party and the country well, if they were to do allot more market research/opinion tracking on their population.
Some say that we should not listen to the polls, but it all depends on what the polls look for--and, it all depends on who delivers the poll to you and for what reason.
This is why most political parties, have their own internal opinion trackers, rather than rely on independent trackers.
We should continually move away from this tuck shop style of politics and public administration and, instead, keep progressive and up to date with your approaches to better serve the public.
As a side note: The only thing I had with the post election research the PLP did after the 2007 election, was with the fact that it was a foreign firm that did the work.
I could have done that, with half the price, with being more informative as well as keep the attitude and opinion tracking current, because I am sensitive with the culture and know what to look for as well as they [any party] having hands on access to see me with the data at any time or for a new survey at any time.
It doesn't take much.
Just saying.
Best,
Youri
http://globalviewtoday.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Youri_Kemp | March 03, 2009 at 07:47 AM
It appears that subtlety is getting me nowhere.
I wrote this article because of the many comments being made that the PLP was a dead horse and would be consigned to long-term irrelevance.
The point of my synopsis was to show where the PLP came from and to note that it had been counted out before. And also to note that the FNM had been almost wiped out before.
But there seems to be no organic evidence for predicting a fatal decline of either party.
However, I can see that the contradictions within the PLP over large-scale corruption have never been fully addressed. And this is one of the big reasons they lost the last election, in my view.
One of the main points I wished to draw was the missed opportunity presented to the PLP on a platter in 2002. They dropped the ball - and that has led directly to their present situation.
Posted by: larry smith | March 03, 2009 at 09:12 AM
Maybe it is time that we have more than two political parties...
Posted by: Justina | March 12, 2009 at 12:03 PM
retarted
Posted by: laflaca | June 01, 2009 at 08:58 AM