Bahamas Electoral Prospects for May 10 2017

by Larry Smith

Now that the political battle lines for the upcoming general election are as clear as they will ever get - and the election has been set for May 10 - we can take a look at the prospects.

Initial observations are that the old guard of the PLP retain their mafia-like grip on the party. And they are desperately doubling down on promises and threats as the campaigning gets underway.

 

Familiar characters from my youth still loom large and in charge - grossly so, in fact. They include the likes of Bernard Nottage, Perry Christie, Balton Bethel, Bradley Roberts and Allyson Maynard-Gibson.

 

Meanwhile, disaffected and disappointed FNMs have made a reluctant effort to coalesce around Dr Hubert Minnis as the only effective option left to them. And the party now features fresh personalities from top to bottom.

 

But the FNM’s strategy still seems to rely on confidence that the government will fall into their hands no matter what they do or don't do. They may be right - the ground game is not visible to me - but on the surface this is the most laissez-faire opposition campaign in memory.

 

The seven FNM parliamentarians who removed Minnis as opposition leader last year are now politically irrelevant, and most won’t be running again. Only Loretta Butler-Turner has confirmed her independent candidacy in Long Island.

 

According to the DNA, the political reality in the Bahamas has changed dramatically, and both the PLP and the FNM will have to eat crow this time around. Bran McCartney believes he will decide who will govern the country for the next five years.

 

The DNA's 60-page platform includes pledges for a series of inquiries into hot-button controversies like the Bank of the Bahamas meltdown, a $500 million economic stimulus, liberalisation of the energy sector, creation of a national lottery, and implementation of local government on New Providence.

 

"Unlike the FNM and PLP who have released similar manifestos, and failed to deliver, this is not just campaign talk – this is what we will accomplish,” the DNA said. “We don’t have aspirations as a political dynasty and if we can’t deliver in our first five years then we don’t belong in government."

 

 

Electoral History

The DNA is the biggest unknown quantity that could actually affect this election. If it did not exist there is no doubt that Christie's PLP would be swept out in a landslide despite Minnis’ incoherence and opposition in-fighting. But the fact that it does exist - and even has a record - makes forecasting much more problematic.

 

The DNA drew over 13,000 votes in the 2012 election - impressive for a new party - and effectively threw several seats to the PLP, without itself coming close to winning a single constituency. Party insiders say they now have 35,000 registered members. Figures for the PLP and FNM have never been publicly available.

 

The DNA’s singular achievement five years ago was its role in driving Hubert Ingraham into retirement. And it’s biggest accomplishment this time around may be providing the same deluxe service to Perry Christie.

 

In the 2007 general election, splinter candidates (the Bahamas Democratic Movement and several independents) received only 3 per cent of the vote. The FNM won with about 50 per cent of the vote while the PLP took 47 per cent.

 

Before 2012, the electoral high point for candidates not drawn from the two major parties was the general election of 2002, when they collectively won 7.5 per cent of the vote. But that was largely due to the fact that the PLP refrained from fielding candidates against several independents (all former FNM incumbents).

 

The present

As of April 9 - the day before parliament dissolved - there were 167,000 registered voters. And the final number is expected to top out at around 170,000 - roughly the same as in the 2012 election.

 

It is interesting to look back at a March 2012 opinion poll that put the PLP and FNM in a dead heat with 32 per cent of respondents favouring one or the other and 28 per cent undecided. Interestingly, eight per cent favoured the DNA - which was almost identical to the actual outcome.

 

According to M'wale Rahming, his polling indicated a significant anti-government vote that was being split by the PLP and the DNA. "Bahamians do not believe the DNA can win and believe that one of the two other parties will win the next election, but aren’t sure which one,”  he said in 2012.

 

The eventual result was 48.6 per cent for the PLP, 42.09 per cent for the FNM, 8.48 per cent for the DNA, and less than one per cent for independents. This put the combined non-PLP vote at 51.3 per cent out of 156,000 votes cast.

 

Although the 2012 pre-election poll put the PLP and FNM in a “statistical dead heat”, then Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham claimed everything pointed to a victory for the FNM: “We are ahead in votes, ahead in enthusiasm and ahead in support,” he bragged.

 

This go-round, Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis is predicting a similar outcome for the PLP: “I see no reason why we shouldn’t take 30 seats.” So he is assuming that the PLP has not lost any support over it’s chaotic five-year term and will retain the same number of seats it currently holds. That’s a stretch by any measure - unless the electoral process is manipulated.

 

A clear case can be made that the situation in the country today is very similar to that in 1992. In addition to the PLP's increasingly authoritarian style, back then the country was running out of economic options due to corruption and mismanagement. 

 

Hotels were selling out, little foreign investment was coming in, and there were widespread fears of devaluation. Many people were considering emigration, but then prime minister Sir Lynden Pindling didn't seem to notice - he made 17 overseas trips in 1992 alone.

The main difference today is is that both the FNM and PLP have been swapping seats in the cabinet room over the past 25 years, whereas in 1992 the FNM was an insurgent party with a fresh, capable leader (by the name of Hubert Ingraham) set to overturn a quarter century of heavy-handed PLP rule.

The Future
In both 2002 and 2012, when the PLP were returned to power after periods in the wilderness, there was a lot of commentary about Perry Christie’s great opportunity to change not only the constitution but the entire political culture of the Bahamas through a policy of inclusion, collaboration and consensus. 

But in practice he went the other way - appointing ideologues, partisan relics and conflicted individuals to every key national post and only ever talking about a constructive new politics. He squandered both opportunities and his legacy will be the worse for it.

Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham have both gone from the scene. And many see Christie as an exhausted figure who is about to go the same way. It really is time for a new politics. And can we have some imagination for a change please?

Comments

[Leandra Esfakis]

Imagine a country with a culture of excellence.
Imagine a country where environmental and economic management are taken seriously
- where the Cabinet members make public welfare a priority over personal gain
- where the Auditor General is respected and accountability is the norm.
Imagine a country where the judiciary is free of political threats
Imagine a country with a tradition of transparency
Imagine a country where patriotism means better roads, schools, health services, electrical services, and better waste management.
Imagine a county where work ethic and education are recognized, and new jobs bring our young people back home.
Imagine a country where we can have confidence in a future.
Imagine.

[Critical Issues]

In my opinion, in order to save this country, we have two critical issues for the immediate future:-

1) The removal from office of a mafia style PLP non-government and prosecute their backsides to jail.

2) It has to be made clear to any new government that it's NOT business as usual.

[Donald W Duncombe]

Many supporters of the major political parties PLP and FNM appear quite oblivious to the fact that they are not and never will be majority. While they should be making overtures to the "masses" who do controll the outcome of elections they do things to anger this group. No matter how many person show at rallies it is of no consequence at the polls. This election is quite like the 1992 election except for two glaring facts: there is a welldefined "third" party and the "masses" the ones who actually make or break governing parties is highly disaffected to say the least. There is a real possibility of the country repaeting the 1967 elections where a took a coalition to form the new governing party. There is a real possibility of results like: 13, 13, 8, 3, 2.