With a general election that must be called by May of this year, Hubert Ingraham has let it be known that this time around he is bringing forward a new, younger slate of Free National Movement (FNM) candidates

Ingraham’s changing party

A new generation of FNMs expected to come forward as candidates

By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com

After coming so close for so long, the Free National Movement (FNM) found gold in the last decade of the twentieth century.  Hubert Ingraham, the former Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) minister and chairman, led the opposition party out of the wilderness and to victory.

Two decades later, that same party is depending on that same leader to win it a fourth mandate.  To do so, he has pledged change.  This change is not philosophical or organizational.  He’s changing faces – this in an effort to win a contest in tough times.  Some have already started complaining and calling ‘the chief’ names.  But being the only man to ever lead the party to success, is anyone in the FNM qualified to question his decisions?

 

Where they came from

The FNM is a coalition movement – as is any lasting party.  Remnants of the old United Bahamian Party (UBP) and rebels from the PLP formed the organization.  Its first general election was in 1972 and it lost that vote.  The FNM won 39.3 percent of the votes cast – the PLP won 59 percent.

The FNM struggled for the next two decades, losing the 1977, 1982 and 1987 elections to Sir Lynden Pindling’s party.  Ingraham joined the FNM in 1990 and led it to victory on August 19, 1992.  He, the poor boy who grew up in Abaco, ended the 25-year rule of Sir Lynden.

Over the next five years Ingraham took the FNM to its pinnacle.  It won in 1997 by a landslide margin, with Ingraham declaring after the poll that he could have won them all.

The PLP only secured six seats in that race – it lost one of those seats in a by-election following Sir Lynden’s retirement.

In the 1997 election, Ingraham cut the number of seats in the House of Assembly from 49 to 40 and he took the FNM to 57.7 percent of the popular vote. This was a massive swing from where the party was when it first took on the PLP in 1972.

What Ingraham brought to the FNM was winning.  Though Sir Kendal Isaacs and Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield are regarded as historic figures, those former FNM leaders could not deliver the ultimate prize. And in politics, winning is the only marker of judgment for leaders.

 

Who will run in 2012?

Ingraham won the FNM’s third mandate in 2007 by securing just under 50 percent of the vote.  The term has been difficult, however.  The financial crisis of 2008 was devastating and its effects persist.  The unemployment rate was 8.7 percent then.  It is now above 13 percent.  There have been four murder records in five years.  The $120 million road work upgrade for New Providence has been poorly managed by the contractor, Jose Cartellone Construcciones Civiles, and the government.  And Atlantis, the project initiated during Ingraham’s first term, has been taken by a creditor.  The prosperity resulting from that resort contributed to the FNM’s landslide win in 1997.

For the FNM, this election will not be easy.  Despite the efforts by the government to push back against the effects of the most significant recession since the Great Depression, voters often blame those in charge when things are not going well.

With an election that must be called by May of this year, Ingraham has let it be known that this time around he is bringing forward a new, younger slate of candidates.

No one will know for sure until the final names are listed, but from either public statements made by Ingraham, ‘word on the street’ or statements by candidates, the team will look quite different.

We know Kenneth Russell won’t be an FNM candidate again under Ingraham.  Clifton MP Kendal Wright is probably in that same category.  Also in the not-running-again group is Larry Cartwright, who has made it known he is bowing out.  North Eleuthera MP and House Speaker Alvin Smith too is out, seemingly along with Marathon MP Earl Deveaux.

Quite a few people are rumored to be in the ‘moving category’ – that is, sitting MPs or candidates who are leaving the areas they ran in last election.  Desmond Bannister is moving from Carmichael to North Andros.  And Zhivargo Laing, Loretta Butler-Turner, Dion Foulkes and Phenton Neymour are also said to be going elsewhere.

 

Reshaping the party is wise

For Ingraham this is likely his last general election.  Having sat in Parliament as an MP for Abaco consecutively since 1977, he has done it all.  He has even done something Sir Lynden could not.  He regained power in 2007 after stepping aside following his party’s 2002 defeat.  Sir Lynden, his mentor, tried but was unable to get back in the throne after his 1992 defeat.

Many tangible things have occurred during this FNM term.  The straw market was finished; the national stadium was completed; a terminal at the airport was built, and others are under construction; the unemployment and prescription drug benefits were created; millions of dollars have been spent on the water system and roads in New Providence; the Bahamas Telecommunications Company was privatized; the container port is almost built; major investment is underway to upgrade the hospital; the magistrates complex is almost done; and there have been upgrades to the Supreme Court complex.  Even more accomplishments could be listed.

The FNM during its campaign will argue that it is the party of doing and Perry Christie and his party are the party of talk.  Ingraham will list what he has done and ask the people to choose between talk and action.  At this stage of his career he will fight hard to win, but if the people want what he would describe as ‘mere talk’ over action and doing, then I suspect that he would be quite happy to say he did his best and to retire.

But before going, if that is to be Ingraham’s fate, it is wise to give the next generation a chance.  One of the major criticisms many

Bahamians have of the PLP and the FNM is that both Ingraham and Christie have stayed too long.  One of the ways to push back against this criticism is to empower the young now.

If the FNM wins, those young people would be in positions to lead right away.  If the FNM loses, those young people would have the experience of an election.

Those old FNMs who have had multiple opportunities to run should not feel badly if Ingraham tells them it’s over.  It is his party.  And that is so because he is a proven winner.  Within the party, he has earned the authority to set his line-up for an election.  Is a man a tyrant, as he was called by Russell, simply because he makes political moves to best position his party, in his mind, for an election?  Of course not.

In politics there are no friendships.  There are just alliances of convenience.  In the weeks to come as Ingraham refines his list of candidates, more FNMs will come to learn this – which is something they should have known when they entered politics.

I have always thought that both leaders should have retired by now, but that is neither here nor there at this stage.  For each to allow the next generation to step to the frontline at this election is a reasonable compromise in our centralized political system.  Those they used to get this far, who have been or will be discarded before the election, should look back fondly on the time they spent ‘in the mix’.  You were the tools of great men.

Jan 09, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Meet the candidates: A look at the prospective future leaders of the Free National Movement (FNM)

Meet the candidates: A look at the prospective future leaders of the FNM

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com



With the 2012 general elections likely being the last election that PM Hubert Ingraham would lead the FNM into, one notes that in a post-Ingraham era—perhaps 2017—the FNM may find itself at a crossroad in terms of leadership. Whenever the Chief decides to depart the political scene, the impending leadership showdown within the FNM will be great theatre. As it stands, there is a conga line of leadership hopefuls, minor also-ran pretenders and plenty of peripheral figures.

No doubt, there will be persons vying for the leadership whose smug giddiness, jack-in-the-box outlooks and sulfurous presence in a runoff could setoff alarm bells. One can only imagine the great setback the party would suffer if such individuals were designated as leader. These days, Bahamians are tired of hearing meaningless missives by garrulous airheads seeking their support only to disappear into the abyss once they have it.

When it comes to the future leadership of both major parties, as it currently stands, the political cupboards are somewhat bare. Although there is a fluid field littered with leadership contenders and pretenders, there is no heir apparent for the FNM’s leadership. Frankly, when the time comes for the FNM to choose a future leader, there will be a need for a far-sighted, energetic and inspiring leader who can articulate a vision for our nation and who is decisive, reasonable and a good listener. As I look at the prospective future leaders of the FNM, if anyone has been overlooked or left out, it means that—at present— their candidacy would be of no significance in any leadership race within the FNM.

PM Ingraham, the FNM’s current leader, is a political legend who overthrew a political godfather (Sir Lynden Pindling) in a head-to-head matchup. Mr Ingraham, who is seen as a man of the people, has connected with a broad swath of the public and has rightly become a feared, revered and beloved figure. Since this is likely the last election he would lead the FNM into battle—he has indicated that he would retire after another term or if the FNM loses the election—today we’ll examine the chances of the persons seen as likely successors of Mr Ingraham.

Tommy Turnquest, the former leader of the FNM, appears to be too indistinct and unpopular to win a caucus within the party and, even more, win a general election. His term as leader was mired in mediocrity and, his current term as National Security minister, has been a long, stupendously ineffective blur!

It is difficult to describe Mr Turnquest as politically analytical and intuitive and, moreover, he seems remote—constantly being read as emanating a sense of separateness. The minister has been able to competently manage Parliamentary affairs as the leader of government business in the House of Assembly. Mr Turnquest is likely to be a part of any leadership clash as he has a prominent name in the FNM and his political naval string is buried in the party.

Carl Bethel has become the nowhere man of Bahamian politics. Mr Bethel has been said to have alienated many voters—both in the internal fabric of the FNM and within his constituency—and was previously beaten by DPM Brent Symonette in the deputy leadership race during the party’s 2005 convention.

Party sources assert that Mr Bethel considers himself a strong contender to succeed Mr Ingraham. That said, Mr Bethel is seen to be an arrogant no-hoper who could only win a race for the FNM’s leadership in his fitful and fanciful dreams. There are those in the hierarchy of the FNM and among the party’s council members who consider Mr Bethel a posturing wannabe whose fantasies about becoming Prime Minister will follow him into old age!

Due to Carl Bethel’s calamitous political record, particularly during his last posting at the Ministry of Education—of which he was relieved by PM Ingraham—one party insider wondered if he could effectively run a concession stand, weighed against a political party or our archipelagic country?

Bran McCartney. Surprise! Yes, I said it.

Bran McCartney was on the fast track to becoming the face of the FNM. The current leader of the DNA, who emerged from the belly of the FNM, may not be seen as trustworthy if he abandons the DNA and returns to the FNM. I think that one day, after PM Ingraham leaves the front line, he will!

So, does McCartney stand a chance in a hall of convention delegates after “severing” all ties with the party? Will he remain divorced from the FNM or seek a remarriage? Is the DNA Mr McCartney’s stage for his very own bigheaded and self-important posturing and pontificating with the expectation of impressing the council of the FNM with his organizational and leadership abilities? After all, he would be the only challenger—post-Ingraham—who has ‘leadership experience’, right?

Desmond Bannister has been the most competent Minister of Education in many moons. His youth, coupled with his attention to detail, energy and poise and political appeal, makes him a strong contender to succeed PM Ingraham as FNM leader. If Mr Bannister wins the North Andros seat—leaving a relatively secure seat in Carmichael to vie to represent his traditionally PLP hometown—it would be a strategic move that should make a statement as to his future in the FNM and about his ability to capture even the imagination of the PLP’s base.

Bannister is intelligent, erudite and cool under fire. His sober minded outlook and perceived common touch makes him one of the best bets to lead the FNM in a post-Ingraham era.

Dion ‘The Bruiser’ Foulkes, who is also a hands-on people’s person, will no doubt throw his hat into the leadership rumble. Foulkes is a charismatic politician whose family ties are entrenched in the FNM. If he wins his seat, that would bring added credence to his leadership chances.

Although he’s currently playing second banana, Brent Symonette is not to be underestimated politically. Whilst there are some who would vigorously oppose his ascension to the leadership, Mr Symonette is said to be a down-to-earth chap who has one of the safest seats in Parliament and is said to be so good on the ground that he’s referred to as a political groundhog during campaigns. That said, Mr Symonette’s detractors feel that he could alienate some voters, thereby making his trek to the top even more difficult.

Dr Duane Sands—whilst at this juncture a political featherweight—could win a seat and purportedly garner support in succeeding Mr Ingraham. I have long heard that Sands would be one of Mr Ingraham’s favorites in the race to succeed him. That said, will Dr Sands have the political horsepower to successfully overthrow a long line of seasoned contenders for the leadership?

Zhivargo Laing will lose his voice after Mr Ingraham’s departure. Frankly, his political career might simply implode! There are many persons who have come to see Laing as a second-rate imitator of PM Ingraham and as another man with forlorn hopes of leading the FNM. By all accounts, Mr Laing is not well-liked, seems intolerant to divergent views and, relative to the leadership, is attempting to step into a pair of oversized shoes.

If Mr Laing is thrusted to the leadership of the party, I doubt that the national electorate would have much to do as his constituents will likely ensure that he doesn’t have a chance—and, frankly, one must be elected to become Prime Minister. Mr Laing would need to be situated in a 100 per cent guaranteed FNM seat.

Dr Hubert Minnis is a respected voice who is gliding under the radar and quietly becoming one of the strongest contenders for the leadership. Dr Minnis is a one-of-a-kind presence and a tactical populist, who would be a top-tier candidate. He is one of the odds-on favorites to lead the party post-Ingraham, has eclipsed many longer tenured MPs in popularity and has proven to be a good policy administrator in his capacity as Health Minister.

So, who will it be? Could either Bannister or Minnis emerge as leader? It is likely.

Is the next FNM leader among the other potential challengers? Or, is the next FNM leader a dark horse candidate who has yet to grace the political scene or could it be someone from outside of the traditional FNM core, perhaps from another party? Admittedly, we’ve also seen that before. Time will tell…...in the meantime, next week I’ll take a look at the PLP’s likely leadership challengers post-Perry Christie.

Caribbean Blog International