Michael Pintard is the Free National Movement (FNM) Problem!

The FNM Has a Michael Pintard Problem!!!!

By James Julmis

The Free National Movement has many problems, but one sits at the centre of them all: Michael Pintard.

After another national rejection, the FNM can no longer pretend that its problem is messaging, timing, money, or machinery.  Those things matter in politics, but leadership sits above all of them.  A party can recover from bad strategy.  A party can recover from poor campaign planning.  A party can recover from division.  What it cannot easily recover from is a leader the public has already decided against.

That is the political burden Michael Pintard now carries.

The Bahamian people have listened to him.  They have watched him.  They have measured him.  They have seen him in Parliament, on the campaign trail, in press conferences, and in moments when serious leadership was required.  Their answer has been clear.  They have declined to follow him.

That is the hard truth the FNM must now face.

Pintard has struggled to connect with ordinary Bahamians because he often sounds like a man speaking at people rather than with them.  His politics feels rehearsed, distant, and overly calculated.  He talks about the people, but he has failed to make the people feel that he truly knows their daily lives, their pressures, their fears, and their hopes.

Politics is about trust.  It is about whether people can look at a leader and say, “That person understands me.”  With Pintard, too many Bahamians see performance without connection.  They see volume without warmth.  They see criticism without comfort.  They see ambition without a clear reason to believe.

This is why the FNM has a Pintard problem.

The party may want to blame the PLP.  It may want to blame the timing of the election.  It may want to blame the media, the voters, or the national mood.  But none of that changes the result.  The public looked at the choice placed before them and decided that Michael Pintard was unready to lead the country.

That judgment cannot be brushed aside.

The FNM must ask itself a serious question: if Michael Pintard could not persuade the country after years in opposition, after repeated opportunities to define himself, and after a campaign built around removing the government, what evidence is there that the public will suddenly see him differently?

There comes a point when a party must stop protecting a leader from political reality.

Pintard’s weakness is deeper than one election cycle.  It is about temperament, image, connection, and credibility.  He has never found a language that reaches beyond the FNM base.  He has never fully settled the question of who he is as a national leader.  He has never made Bahamians feel that he carries the emotional weight of the country.

That is why he remains limited.

The Bahamian people may disagree with the government on issues.  They may complain about the cost of living, crime, bureaucracy, and the pressure of daily life.  But disagreement with the government does automatically become support for the opposition.  The FNM assumed public frustration would be enough. It was wrong.

People may want better.  That does not mean they want Pintard.

This is the central failure of his leadership.  He has been unable to turn public concern into public confidence.  He has been unable to turn criticism of the government into belief in himself.  He has been unable to make the FNM feel like a government-in-waiting.

That is a personal political failure.

The FNM must now decide whether it wants to keep managing Pintard’s image or begin rebuilding the party.  It cannot do both.  A party serious about renewal must be honest about why the public pulled away.  It must listen to what the country has already said.

Bahamians have made their judgment.

They do not see Michael Pintard as the answer.

And until the FNM accepts that, it will continue to confuse movement with progress, noise with leadership, and opposition with readiness.

The FNM has a Michael Pintard problem.

The longer it denies it, the longer it will remain exactly where the Bahamian people have placed it: in opposition.

Source / Comment

Shanendon Cartwright on Politics and good public policy in The Bahamas

Is good public policy good politics? Absolutely!

The Commonwealth of The Bahamas has reached a pivotal and significant crossroad in our national development. Bahamians through their increased level of frustration and disenchantment with government have placed the impact and relevance of political leadership in the spotlight.

While there is always a natural tendency to focus on particular personalities, Bahamians are asking a much broader question of whether or not our politics is serving us well. They feel that governments have not, in some cases, functioned at their optimum; and this observation is in vivid contrast to the many political campaigns that are constantly ambitious, aggressive, accomplished to a degree, deliberate and simply get things done.

Their discontent and dissatisfaction is anchored by a fundamental and ever-present irony. We live in a time when answers to our prevailing questions, and possible solutions to our most challenging problems, are literally at our finger tips by way of our smartphones or the click of a mouse. Yet, there seems, and “seems” being the operative word here, to be a limited capacity on behalf of our governments at times to efficiently grapple with many of our country’s short- and long-term problems.

If I may, however, offer an alternate perspective. The Commonwealth of The Bahamas is a dynamic country with some of the best minds in the world. We are a country with a small population but produce people with extraordinary gifts, talents and supreme intelligence that light up the world stage at a higher rate than many countries with 10 times the number of people. That’s why it is my absolute belief and contention that the Commonwealth of The Bahamas is the greatest nation on Earth.

We have the answers to our problems. In my humble view, progress on particular issues is slow because in many cases governments have retreated to the corner of what they believe to be safe politics rather than standing firm on bold transformative policies. They are obsessed with the question, “Is good public policy, good politics?” I say absolutely!

Why is it necessary to discuss, deliberate and dissect this? Well, it’s obvious to the Bahamian people if you listen to them as I do that solutions rarely make it to their destination because of the political gauntlet and the perpetual campaigning that goes on. Bahamians see continuous politicking and not enough governing. Now don’t get me wrong we love ourselves some politics in The Bahamas. However, dipped in to our enthusiasm for the rhetoric and political jostling lies an entrenched and burning hope and real expectation that governing will start and things will get better in the country we love.

Politics and policy

There is a dance that is always happening between politics and policy – a waltz if you will. Politics is the mechanism and way in which we the Bahamian people choose our elected officials; the way in which politicians vie for acceptance from the Bahamian people. Policy, on the other hand, is the medium through which the elected officials should be advancing real change and transformation for the empowerment of the Bahamian people and the development of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Policy is where real, legitimate, courageous, life-changing, inspiring leadership stakes its claim. It is where history will herald contributions and determine legacies. Put another way: You have won an election? Now truly lead, govern and make things better in The Bahamas for future generations.

Political parties morph into governing parties once elected and seem to take the posture sometimes that the voter’s initial discomfort or anxiety with a particular policy proposal is sufficient to stop it in its tracks. This position, although I believe unintentional, discredits and insults the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the Bahamian people who are more than capable of sifting and navigating through proposed policy and project debates that are supposedly created to benefit them and the country.

Herein, in my estimation, lies an unescapable truth. While I have attempted to make a distinction between politics and policy in their purpose, there is an unavoidable seam at which they do meet; hence my argument. In most cases where the policy may be good, it isn’t the policy that the Bahamian public reject. It is the lackluster collection of weak explanations, half-truths, poor communication and failure to adequately engage the Bahamian people as a legislative partner. They fail to competently make the Bahamian people aware of how a proposed policy benefits them. After all, aren’t we supposed to know and feel like it will be good for us? Isn’t that the purpose of public policy?

Good policy

Amazingly when good policy has far-reaching and long-term impact, members of the electorate are prepared to subject themselves to some temporary discomfort and uneasiness. It’s similar and analogous to going to the doctor for a vaccination. The short-term experience of getting a needle is not necessarily desirable to many, but the long-term benefits of being immunized are well known. Yes, I do get and can concede that it’s natural for Bahamians to be less skeptical about what their doctors say compared to politician. But, the principle is the still the same. Adequately explain and convince the Bahamian people how they and the country will reap the rewards of the policy and they will embrace it despite the imperfections. When good policy doesn’t resonate, it’s either bad policy or there is a lack of persuasion.

Let me add to those who are just totally pessimistic about politics. What I’m highlighting is persuasion based on what is authentic and true about the specific policy, its merits and shortfalls. Conveying half-truths, lies and using smoke and mirrors about the policy do not amount to persuasion; that’s deception and manipulation and Bahamians will make you pay a political price for such a deed.

It is truly fascinating to me and many Bahamians that a sentiment and conviction exist on behalf of some on the political frontline, both politician and political technocrats, that suggesting certain policy proposals may lead to a political death trap. Here’s the irony in such thinking. Politicos pride themselves on being political geniuses – strategists of the highest order. They use the terms “leader” and “leadership” loosely when they should be used sparingly because a major part of political prowess, political leadership, if you will, and political competency is the ability to sincerely connect with and to articulate to the people what you are proposing in order to convince them that the measure is good for all and the country. There is nothing admirable about shrinking from tough decisions masquerading as political savvy and shrewd strategy. A weak, timid or fair-weather stance will not lead to real progress in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas; nor will it translate into meaningful change in the lives of Bahamians.

The greatest leaders across this God-given Earth have been persons, more often than not, who have lives that encompass vision, decisiveness, resolve, character, strength, selflessness and inspiration. The country we love – the Commonwealth of The Bahamas – will not flourish on easy decision making. Greater expectations demand greater responsibility from us as citizens; but also, especially our leaders. We need good public policies that will strengthen our economy and upgrade our fiscal standing so that Bahamians can enjoy real economic empowerment. We need good policies that will start to alleviate the debilitating scourge of crime and its elements. We need good policies that will ensure that our children have the best education in the world so that they can determine a better future for themselves. We need good policies that will make us a healthier nation regardless of socio-economic statuses. We need good policies that will better equip us to create even more world-class athletes and sporting programs. Most of all, we need good public policies to secure our Bahamian cultural identity and export it to the world.

Bahamians everywhere are demanding real change. They want to be inspired by a vision of a country that is only limited by what we can imagine. Bahamians want a Bahamas where the Bahamian is king. Bahamians have always been prepared to give, to sacrifice for the good of their country.

We are a giving people. It’s incumbent upon our leaders to advocate for and fight on behalf of the Bahamian people by presenting and communicating good public policy for their consideration that is sound, substantive, impactful, forward thinking and that cradles the hope and the aspirations of all Bahamians. There is no doubt in my mind that good public policy can transform, enrich and uplift the lives of Bahamians everywhere. And when the time is appropriate they will register their trust and approval at the ballot box. Is good public policy good politics? Absolutely!

• Shanendon E. Cartwright is a marketing and hospitality professional and the founder and facilitator of Vision 21 – an educational, motivational and interactive lecture series on leadership.

June 25, 2014

thenassauguardian

If we want to encourage the best and the brightest citizens to enter into the elective political arena... we should seek to eliminate the observation of U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton that: “Elections are more often bought than won”

what practical approach can we realistically take regarding how we finance political campaigns in The Bahamas?

Campaign financing: A better way

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

“We need real campaign finance reform to loosen the grip of special interests on politics." - Tom Daschle

Every five years around election time, incessant lip service is paid to campaign financing.  It can only be lip service because after the ballots have been cast, counted and catalogued, the notion of campaign finance reform retires to hibernation – that is, until the next general election.  Therefore, this week, we would like to Consider This…what practical approaches can we realistically take regarding how we finance political campaigns in The Bahamas?

Unquestionably, politics has become an extremely expensive exercise.  When one considers the cost of political rallies, paraphernalia, including T-shirts and other garments now available, flags, posters, signage, printing of flyers, advertisements, including newspaper, radio and television broadcasts and commercials, the cost is staggering.  Let’s not forget the direct cost of personnel employed by political parties; the cost of constituency offices, sometimes four or five, particularly in the Family Islands; the cost of electricity, water, and telephones; the cost of food and beverages; of political consultants; and the printing of party platforms.  When these and other costs are considered, the real cost of staging a general election could very easily cost $250,000 per constituency or nearly $10 million per party.  So how are political parties expected to finance such a mammoth undertaking?

Using the public purse

It has become commonplace for the government of the day to use the power of the public purse to significantly finance its party’s political campaign.  We observed this practice when the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was in power; we witnessed it in the by-election in Elizabeth two years ago; and we are seeing it again in the current general election.  While this has been a common practice, the Free National Movement (FNM) government seems to have taken this phenomenon to new heights.

Shortly after announcing the general election of 2012, the government launched a record contract signing marathon.  The $12 million contract for the construction of a new clinic in North Abaco and a multimillion-dollar contract for a new hospital in Exuma are a few examples of this.

Last weekend, amidst great public fanfare at police headquarters, the prime minister awarded $1 million to charitable organizations.  Ironically, this is the same government that – only one year earlier – reduced the government’s subvention to such organizations during the annual budget debate in the House of Assembly.  This is the same government that discontinued the extremely effective YEAST program that provided a positive prototype for young Bahamian men at risk and the same government that canceled the effective and internationally celebrated urban renewal program established by the PLP.

No matter which party is in power, an intelligent and discerning public should look askance at the government of the day exploiting and abusing the public purse in order to win votes after elections have been called.

Campaign contributions

In The Bahamas, political campaigns are predominantly financed by contributions from persons, companies, and organizations that believe in the democratic process and want to ensure that the message of the political party that they support is widely and successfully disseminated.

In the absence of campaign finance laws, there are no restrictions on who can contribute to a political party and how much they can donate.  Accordingly, anyone -- Bahamians and foreigners – can contribute any amount to anyone at any time without any accountability whatsoever.  The real question that we must address for the future health of our democracy is whether this is a desirable practice?

It has become customary for political contributions to be made in private, sometimes on the condition of confidentiality and often in secrecy with only a select few members of the party knowledgeable regarding the source of the funds.

Campaign 2012 has seen a new development in political funding.  During the last few mass rallies, the prime minister has publicly appealed from the podium for campaign contributions, describing it as a further deepening of our democracy by allowing the public to become investors in his party.  While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, it is unprecedented and uncharacteristic.  We have never before seen this prime minister – or any other for that matter – beg for money from a public podium.

It therefore begs the question: why has he done so now, during what he says is his last campaign?  He alluded to the answer to this question on Thursday past at a mass rally on R. M. Bailey Park when he said that he will not tolerate anyone in his Cabinet who has financially benefited from conflicts of interest.

We believe that he made this appeal for financial contributions because, while the FNM is still well-funded by those wealthy interest groups who support him in order to continue reaping his government’s largess, some of his traditional sources of funding are less generous than they have been in the past.  This is possibly because he has cut some of his more financially well-connected candidates for reasons already stated and reiterated again from that podium last Thursday in a purposefully vague but very revealing way.

Campaign finance reform

Clearly, as the prime minister is opening party funding up to the masses in ways never seen before, the time has come to enact campaign financing legislation.  There are several things that can be done in order to impose strict controls for campaign fund-raising, primarily to level the playing field and to minimize disparate levels of funding campaigns by the various political parties.  Campaign financing legislation should also establish disclosure requirements with respect to funding and spending in elections.

Such a law could introduce statutory limits on contributions by individuals, organizations and companies, which would remove the influence of big money from politics and should also prohibit foreign influences from invading the local political process.

There should also be limits on large potential donors to prevent them from gaining extraordinary political access or favorable legislation or other concessions in return for their contributions.  Campaign finance laws should also provide for the capping of such funding and for the disclosure of sources of campaign contributions and expenditures.  It should also limit or prohibit government contractors from making contributions with respect to such elections.

Campaign financing legislation could even provide for matching funds by the government for all the candidates in order to ensure that the playing field truly is level and to enhance clean elections.

Finally, in order to more vigilantly protect the public purse, the law should strictly prohibit a government from signing any new contracts after general or by-elections are called.

Conclusion

Campaigns will become more expensive as time progresses.  As we mature politically, we should seek to ensure that political parties operate on a level playing field and remove the barriers to participation in the democratic process because of a lack of funding.  If we want to encourage the best and the brightest citizens to enter into the elective political arena, we should seek to eliminate the observation of U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton that: “Elections are more often bought than won”.

Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament.  Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Apr 23, 2012

thenassauguardian

Kennedy MP Kenyatta Gibson: Bahamians must understand that to save their country they must be prepared to work together and make sacrifices

Not the time to mislead the people
tribune242 editorial:

KENNEDY MP Kenyatta Gibson, who came from the bosom of the PLP almost two years ago, first as an Independent MP, then as a full fledged FNM, had sound advice for his former political colleagues during the recent Budget debate.

"These are times," he said, "in which all Bahamians must understand that to save their country they must be prepared to work together and make sacrifices."

"To mislead the people into thinking that this belt tightening Budget is a result of the FNM Government's inefficiency or incompetence is an insult to the people's intelligence," he told the Opposition who have accused the Prime Minister of not protecting The Bahamas from the present world crisis.

We are all in this together.  When Bahamians sit in front of their TV sets at night and see the people of the world losing their jobs and closing their businesses, and countries heading for bankruptcy, they must understand that The Bahamas cannot stop the world and get off -- they are a part of the whole.  The biblical seven lean years are here and now.

"The current economic crisis in which we, like other countries in this region are plunged, can best be resolved and remedied where there is a conciliatory atmosphere of understanding and cooperation of all concerned," Mr Gibson said.

"But if we create rancour and doubt and self pity and make people feel that someone did something to them and we know this not to be true, then we are guilty of the sin of omission and falsehood and are not worthy to be called Leaders of the people."

Mr Gibson told the MPs that "we can rise above partisan politics, especially in times of national crisis and danger" and together "lift our country and our people to greater heights."

Today's Bahamians cannot pass today's troubles onto unborn generations, he said. "It is now our watch and together as one Bahamian people we have to fix it."

Mr Gibson pointed out that the FNM government did not cause the recent problems on Wall Street, nor did it dismantle Lehman Brothers, or create the US's sub prime mortgage debate.  It didn't even drive up oil prices or cook the books of leading US banking institutions, nor did it defraud the SEC - all of which started the economic ball rolling downhill at an ever increasing pace.  No one could stop the roll and so country after country -- The Bahamas included - was caught in its wake as it picked up momentum and dragged each one of them to the bottom.  Each nation now has to pick itself up and climb to the top.  Politicians who would divide and pull the people down at this time are an unwelcome and useless appendage.  It would be best to dismiss them and move on alone.

Mr Gibson said that "these are the easily verifiable facts but some persons true to their form, would prefer not to lead but to mislead and misguide and misinform."

Mr Gibson pointed out that James Smith, the current chairman of CFAL, was the main architect of Opposition Leader Perry Christie's economic policy when Mr Christie was prime minister (2002-2007).  He is a man of "impeccable" credentials as an economist, Mr Gibson pointed out.  No one would dispute that observation.

"PLP's from Inagua in the south," said Mr Gibson, "to Grand Bahama in the north have heralded his genius in budgetary exercise after budgetary exercise since 2002.  After the Progressive Liberal Party's defeat in 2007, 'the word often came down' to the general public that the Progressive Liberal Party was supporting sentiments expressed by former Minister Smith."

Recognised as an expert on his subject, Mr Gibson, wondered why in this instance the PLP did not embrace Mr Smith's comments on the FNM's belt-tightening budget with "its usual eagerness and zeal."

According Mr Smith "both the public and private sectors need to appreciate that for the next few months, maybe even another year, it will be tough and everyone needs to tighten their belts.  I think the budget reflected that tone."

Fidelity Bank's president Gregory Bethel, another respected member of the financial community, echoed Mr Smith's assessment.   "These are the right moves," said Mr Bethel, "to get the country's economy back on tract."

Continued Mr Bethel: "The Prime Minister has set the tone.  He said that this is a time for sacrifice, service and reform and the Bahamian people must understand that it is not business as usual.  Everybody in our society must share in the sacrifice, share in the pain and share in the reform."

Said Mr Gibson: "This is our age, indeed our time, indeed our call to sacrifice for our country."

He pointed to David Cameron, Britain's new prime minister, as an example of how Mr Cameron used the UK's harsh economic environment to explain to the British people why his government had to introduce a similar austere budget as the rest of the world.  Mr Cameron said that this was an opportunity to explain to the people the purpose behind the pain.

Mr Gibson told the Opposition that if they "call this a budget of pain, it must be characterised as pain for a noble cause.  That cause being the continued viability of the nation."

For the Opposition to move in the opposite direction, especially at this moment of crisis, just means that they are headed towards the void of political oblivion.

June 29, 2010

tribune242 editorial

The Bahamas Government Ongoing Deficit Spending - Budget after Budget

The Bahamas Minister of State for Finance, James Smith on reducing the budget deficit: “What we must bear in mind in trying to reach deficit reduction targets is that it is not a one year exercise

Gov’t Facing Growing Deficit

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

06/05/2004

As the fiscal year winds to a close, government officials are working feverishly to bring a new budget to parliament at the end of this month.

It is too soon to tell whether the government will meet its revenue projection of $1.005 billion, but collections are expected to exceed the more than the $900 million collected in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, according to Minister of State for Finance James Smith.

“The deficit is likely to be a little larger than expected,” he told the Journal recently.

The 2003-2004 budget projects an overall funding shortfall of $122 million, which would raise government debt by 2.2 percent to 38.7 percent of GDP.

But Minister Smith has indicated that more than $30 million in unexpected expenditure will increase the deficit, unless the projected revenue is dramatically surpassed.

“As usual and without fail, you have the unexpected events that tend to throw it out of whack,” he said.  “Sometimes it’s favorable, most times it isn’t.  So the challenge is always there.”

The Minister added though that, “What we must bear in mind in trying to reach deficit reduction targets is that it is not a one year exercise.

“We try to do that over several years – three or four years as the case may be – because you really don’t want to choke real development.  If we have a run over the year over the projections that means that in framing the budget for the upcoming year, we take that into account and we might have to introduce revenue measures or additional expenditure controls or a combination of both.”

Prime Minister Perry Christie said Sunday while on the Radio Love 97 Programme “Jones and Company” that the government is “severely challenged” by the increasing expenditure and revenue collections.

But he reported that there were signs of improvements.

“We are very happy that we have now seen the beginnings of the turnaround in revenue,” Mr. Christie said.  “The last three months would suggest that the turnaround is setting in and that is headed toward obviously a better situation.  But even with that, we are going to be severely challenged given the kinds of developments that are taking place on our islands.”

On Wednesday, Minister Smith was unable to reveal specifics regarding collections.

The government is into its final weeks of preparing a new budget, facing a traditional rigidity in expenditure.

Minister Smith has pointed to the difficulties in preparing a budget when such a large portion of expenditure is fixed.  It is a situation he said is not easy to restructure.

“I think it’s going to be very difficult because 55 percent or thereabouts are salaries and wages and it’s a very difficult political decision to reduce the size of the public service, so you almost take the wages and salaries as a given,” he noted.

“Added to that would be another fixture of the budget, debt servicing, and that’s about another 18 percent of your budget.  So already you’re talking about 75 percent of your budget that’s fixed.  No matter how hard you try, unless we were to have some dramatic structural change in the economy, I don’t see that happening.  I know of it happening in no economy in the world, really.”

One way of beginning the reversal of this trend is making conditions conducive to the growth of the private sector, he said.

“If you create the jobs in the private sector then there is likely to be a drain from the public sector into the private sector,” Minister Smith pointed out.