by Simon
A perennial conceit of the present is ignorance of history, giving rise to feckless commentary, including purposely mischievous or slipshod editorializing and news analysis.
The current conceit concerns the supposed terminal illness of the Free National Movement. One oft-pontificating prelate questions the FNM’s survival, especially given, in his opinion, that it is a coalition of interests. What studied ignorance.
The FNM overcame the 25-year reign of Sir Lynden Pindling. It is resilient, demonstrating the ability to take a cut in the posterior and bounce back. Moreover, political parties are typically coalitions of various interests.
Undeniably, these are challenging times for the FNM following electoral loss and the departure from frontline politics of the Delivery Boy who first led it to office. Still, one wishes that more of our professional opinion-makers and political journalists might seed and flavour their analysis with historical perspective beyond the limited horizon of the daily news.
SEEDS
Two other groups are in need of a greater perspective: Dispirited FNMs and gloating and gleeful PLPs. We live in a world of both/and. The seeds of defeat are present in victory as are the seeds of victory discernible in defeat. Have we not learned this lesson from the reversals of fortune of the major parties from 2002 onwards?
The political events since May 7th, including the outcome of the North Abaco by-election offer some insight into the fortunes and possible fate of the governing party and the opposition, and of the respective Leaders.
The Ingraham era is over. Hubert Ingraham said as much after May 7th, demonstrating this by resigning his House seat. Yet, his legacy is still unfolding.
The losses of 7 May and 15 October, 2012, are elements of, and will partly shape considerations of his legacy. But neither will prove dispositive in the historical rendering of the same.
Even as Perry Christie and Dr. Hubert Minnis carry on in the post-Ingraham era, they and their immediate successors will be viewed through and compared to the extraordinary legacy of Ingraham.
Dr. Minnis has the difficult task of following another Hubert Alexander. The latter is an outsized personality who dominated Bahamian politics for two decades. Even his detractors respect his accomplishments.
Following the North Abaco rout, Minnis declared the Ingraham era over. He blamed the FNM collectively for the defeat. Purposeful ruthlessness in politics is sometimes a necessary disposition. But crass ruthlessness by a leader, who seeks to so crudely deflect ultimate responsibility for a defeat, is a demonstration of weakness, not strength.
RESPONSIBILITY
At last week’s US presidential debate, Barack Obama, in Trumanesque-style accepted responsibility for the security breach in Libya which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
This paradox of leadership eluded Dr. Minnis: Had he stood up and unequivocally bore responsibility for the loss, his stock would have risen. Instead, he seemed petulant, a diminished figure, quicker to blame Hubert Ingraham than accept responsibility.
The buck must stop with Minnis, who agreed to the party’s candidate, and who bears final responsibility for the selection. He famously vowed to move to Abaco, promising a greater victory than Ingraham’s May 7th win. Various of the party’s by-election ads prominently featured him.
His has been a mixed record as Leader of the Opposition. His performance in the House has been, charitably, less than mediocre. Moving forward, he will have to prove that he has what it takes. In due course, FNMs will assess whether he or someone else is best-suited to leading the party.
The tussle to replace a long-standing leader is often a drawn-out and complex affair. So may be the case in the FNM. In such competitions, an ultimate test for a leader is how to foster unity amidst a diversity of competing voices, views and interests. This requires a velvet glove and a whip.
All parties air dirty laundry, though it is best not to air too much. The greater challenge is not to burn down the house or so badly harm its foundation that it takes a long time to repair the damage.
Understandably, many FNMs want a united party that will serve as an effective opposition. But rebuilding and strengthening a political organization is rarely a quiet or simple affair. Some turbulence and turmoil are to be expected.
TURBULENCE
The Progressive Liberal Party has endured considerable turbulence and turmoil from its inception. Its founders, among them H. M. Taylor and Cyril Stevenson, were overthrown.
In the attempted 1963 Christmas coup, Sir Lynden Pindling was almost dethroned by the Hon. Paul Adderley and others dissatisfied with his leadership, including --Sir Milo Butler. Then in 1965 Adderley left the PLP and formed the National Democratic Party. He rejoined the PLP after the NDP was wiped out at the polls in the 1972 general election.
The most consequential fracture in the PLP was the revolt of the Dissident Eight, alarmed by several policy disasters and the increasingly dictatorial tendencies of Sir Lynden which eventually metastasized into a cult of personality.
Then there was the night of the long knives, when Franklyn Wilson, among others, incurred the wrath and disfavour of Sir Lynden.
Following allegations of the aiding and abetting of drug trafficking within the Pindling Government, and a Commission of Inquiry which raised damning questions about Sir Lynden’s finances, the Hon. Arthur Hanna, one of his closest allies, resigned from the cabinet. Sir Lynden then fired Ingraham and Christie as his administration tottered, riven with internal divisions and mass corruption.
Another upheaval rocked the PLP after Sir Lynden stepped down and a rancorous and vicious contest for the leadership took place between Dr. B. J. Nottage and Perry Christie. Nottage and some of his supporters left and formed the Coalition for Democratic Reform.
Today Philip Brave Davis’ ambition to become prime minister is as much a secret as a bad weave. He is not a lone wolf in Christie’s Cabinet desperate to replace their Leader.
Meanwhile, the PLP is still über-obsessed with Ingraham. While the Ingraham era in frontline politics is over, there is little sense of a Christie era. Having wasted his previous term, he has little time left to create an era, much less a legacy.
Christie remains in gloating mode, proud as a peacock, tickled and tittering that he has beaten his erstwhile colleague. Yet, he remains in Ingraham’s shadow, defining himself more as the anti-Ingraham, than as his own man. It will not help that he will spend the next many years carrying out much of Ingraham’s legacy.
The cackles and cacophony of derision directed at Ingraham can be heard in the House and elsewhere. But the din of the present will give way to the relentless insistence of history. This will include the voices of historians and others who will judge the legacies of Ingraham and Christie. In that contest, Ingraham will have the last belly-laugh. Christie’s accomplishments will pale miserably in comparison.
A part of Ingraham’s legacy is the vital role he played in bringing the FNM to office on three occasions. He enjoys an extraordinary record of accomplishments and good governance. Nobody’s record is flawless. Still, Ingraham has left the country and the FNM in generally good stead.
FNM’s have a stellar legacy on which to build, including: the vision and accomplishments of its founders and the party faithful, the Ingraham years, and 40 years of helping to secure the Bahamian democracy.
The party has work to do. But it can approach the future with confidence and conviction. FNMs need to keep calm and carry on, emboldened by a rich legacy, and a cadre of committed and capable talent.
Comments