Tommy Turnquest was “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” and was “uninspiring”, but had a “reputation for honesty”, says U.S. Embassy officials in Nassau

Turnquest examined in cables

By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com


Former FNM leader viewed as uninspiring

As someone who went head to head with Perry Christie, a formidable opponent in 2002, Tommy Turnquest was closely analyzed by the Americans, who met with him more than once to discuss various issues of a political and national nature, reveals several cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.

U.S. Embassy officials wrote that Turnquest was “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” and was “uninspiring”, but had a “reputation for honesty”.

The meetings those officials had with Turnquest occurred while he was in the political wilderness — a senator as he had not won the Mount Moriah constituency race.

An embassy official wrote that Turnquest’s failure to win the seat in May 2002 was “a humiliation”, given that he had become FNM leader only two months earlier.

In 2004, Turnquest spoke to those officials in his capacity as leader of the Free National Movement (FNM).

An embassy official recorded that he was born to the wealthy family of Sir Orville and Lady Edith Turnquest (now deceased).

The cable said Turnquest admitted that he comes from "privilege".

He subsequently married into a wealthy Bahamian family as well, it said.

“As a shareholder of Focol, a Freeport-based oil company, the Turnquests have a steady stream of income,” the cable noted.

“Many Bahamians see this as a barrier to his political career. Whereas his father was a self-made man, Tommy is seen by some Bahamians as a spoiled brat.

“His three children are all attending/have attended exclusive prep schools in the United States and all are bound for similarly-expensive Ivy League universities.”

Further analyzing Turnquest’s personality, an embassy official wrote that in The Bahamas — “a small country where the ‘Cheers’ phrase ‘everyone knows your name’ really is true — charisma and dynamism, both personally and publicly, are prerequisites for a politician.

“Bahamians expect their political leaders to ‘perform’ when giving speeches. As the son of the former Governor General Sir Orville, Tommy's opportunities to date have come because of his family lineage,” the cable said.

“Privately Turnquest does not project the ‘gravitas’ expected of a leader, nor publicly the rivalist oratorical skills expected of a politician.”

According to a 2004 cable, during a meeting with embassy officials — one of them being Charge d’Affaires Robert Witajewski —Turnquest maintained fierce loyalty to the FNM and queried repetitively the U.S. view of the performance of the Christie administration.

“He ranted that Prime Minister (Perry) Christie's slow decision-making has wasted valuable Bahamian resources, lost many contracts and put the Bahamian people at a disadvantage. On the FNM website, Turnquest gives the PLP an ‘F’ for effectiveness,” the cable said.

In 2005, in a move that Turnquest said took him completely by surprise, Hubert Ingraham effortlessly snatched back the leadership of the Free National Movement, saying he had come back after so many FNMs asked for his return.

While many pundits agreed that the move left Turnquest further humiliated, he assured Ingraham that he would never have to watch his back and that he fully supported the former prime minister as party leader.

An embassy official wrote that Turnquest had to “step down” to “make way” for Ingraham’s return.
“Turnquest assumed leadership of the FNM from Ingraham in 2002 in the face of near-certain electoral defeat and gracefully relinquished his leadership to Ingraham in time for 2007 elections,” the cable said.

In November 2005, members of the FNM voted almost two to one to reject Turnquest, opting instead to replace him with Ingraham.

Not long after he regained full power of the party, Ingraham was asked by reporters to respond to a statement Turnquest had made that he had gone back on his word.

Ingraham explained that he did not decide to run until the morning after he spoke with Turnquest, advising him that he would not seek the leadership again.

Ingraham said “the calls were incessant, the demands were great by party supporters and others throughout the country and I decided the following morning that I will allow my name to go forward”.

In 2007 when Ingraham became prime minister again, he appointed Turnquest minister of national security, a key position during any period of national development, but particularly at that time when there were growing worries about crime and the fear of crime.

One of the cables said Ingraham’s decision to appoint Turnquest to that post “will strengthen party unity”.

According to the cable, “Turnquest's loyalty and self-sacrifice for the party has clearly kept him in Ingraham's inner circle.”

It said, “Turnquest does not have a strong national security background, although his experience as immigration minister will serve him well.

“With a reputation for honesty and a good relationship with the embassy, Turnquest should be an effective partner in ensuring continued close law enforcement and military partnerships. This portfolio has traditionally been the purview of the Deputy Prime Minister, and gives Turnquest an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to lead the party in a post-Ingraham era.”

5/24/2011

thenassauguardian

Branville McCartney says: ...the PLP and FNM are working together, and they will try to work together to try and stop the DNA from becoming the next government of The Bahamas

Bran: Documents show 'true democracy' denied to Bahamians for years



By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net


CITING the close working relationship between the leaders of the PLP and FNM in recently revealed Wikileaks documents, DNA leader Branville McCartney said it should now be painfully obvious that "true democracy" has been denied to the Bahamian people for many years.

"There is no doubt that both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition have been friends for many, many years. They have been business partners and nothing has changed. They contact each other on a regular basis and they seem to want to ensure that each one of them will be successful in their own right. When people now speak about a two party system, it is indeed a two party system now; you have on one side the PLP and the FNM together, and on the other you have the DNA. There is no doubt about that," Mr McCartney declared.

Pointing to a US Embassy cable from 2003 released by Wikileaks, in which Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is quoted by a US official as saying that he speaks to and offers advice to PLP leader Perry Christie a few times a week, Mr McCartney said there is no surprise why both political parties want to make the upcoming election purely about both the PLP and the FNM.

"This is exactly what they want. If it's not Mr Ingraham, then it is going to be Mr Christie and vice versa. That's how it is and that is how it has been. They are playing yo-yo with the Bahamian people," he said.

This tactic, Mr McCartney said, denies the Bahamian people a true democratic process because as long as both leaders of the PLP and the FNM are working together, the Bahamian people never really have an option.

"They are working together, and they will try to work together to try and stop the DNA from becoming the next government of the Bahamas. That has been said to me personally. You would recall when Mr Christie was ill as prime minister, he called Hubert Ingraham to ask for his advice. What does that tell you? The Bahamian people ought to really see beyond that and go for an entity that will give true change for the country.

"If these guys were truly serious about change and serious about moving forward, both of them would have stepped down and allowed some of the other persons in the FNM and the PLP to take the reins."

The DNA is expected to travel to Grand Bahama next week and introduce the island to three of the six candidates they expect to name there for the upcoming general election.

The party has said it hopes to have a full slate of 41 candidates to challenge both the PLP and the FNM in every constituency.

Mr McCartney is the current independent MP for the Bamboo Town constituency.

May 24, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Hubert Ingraham is still the FNM’s most popular politician...

Bahamas WikiLeaks cables revealed

By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasgaurd.com


Inside the mind of Hubert Ingraham


When he sat down with a U.S. Embassy official at his law office on April 8, 2003, Hubert Ingraham outlined who he thought would make up the new FNM leadership team, and dismissed any chance of Brent Symonette being a part of it due to his “personality and lack of appeal” outside the bounds of his wealthy constituency, according to an embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.

While he dismissed Symonette’s chance at a successful leadership bid, Ingraham denied that his race had anything to do with it.

According to the cable — which was classified by the embassy’s political/economic chief at the time, Brian Bachman — Ingraham said the best thing that could happen would be for Symonette to challenge for the leadership, because he “would be beaten so soundly that it would shatter all his illusions.”

But at the FNM convention more than two years later, Symonette did not challenge for the leadership. He went for deputy leader and won. He was made deputy prime minister when the party won at the polls in 2007.

The 2003 cable said Ingraham quickly and confidently rattled off who he believed the new FNM leadership team would be after the next party election: Turnquest as leader; former Minister of Economic Development Zhivargo Laing as deputy leader; former Attorney General Carl Bethel as party chairman, and former legislators Johnley Ferguson and Darron Cash to round out the leadership slate.

Ingraham characterized that group as “young, energetic and talented.”

According to that 2003 cable, Ingraham confidently predicted that the FNM would win the next election, saying Christie’s PLP “already had the markings of a one-term government.”

He was spot on in his assessment.

The cable also revealed that Ingraham said that he had already become convinced by January 2002 that the FNM would lose the May 2002 general election.

He scheduled the February referendum on citizenship and other issues “because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”

The referendum failed.

When asked if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently if given the opportunity, Ingraham, according to the cable, quickly responded “Absolutely not!”

He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he set out to do.

On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been better handled, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again, the cable said.

With regard to the failed constitutional referendum, which many point to as a key factor in the FNM’s electoral loss, Ingraham denied that it was a factor.

“He admitted to being shocked when the PLP came out against the referendum, since they had all voted for the various amendments in Parliament, but refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation,” the cable said.

“Ingraham showed a glint of anger at the suggestion that some in the FNM blamed him for the electoral loss, and fired back.

“He strongly defended his record and claimed that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.

“He pointed out that he won in 1992 and 1997 by strong margins, and that it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost.”

According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Turnquest in his shadow.

“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM loss,” the cable said.

It quoted Ingraham as saying, “I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses.

“And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997!”

Ingraham said that he was not surprised the FNM lost in May, but only reluctantly agreed that he might share some of the blame for the loss, the cable said.

“He said he was fully confident of his continued popularity and consistently dodged questions about his own political future.”

The cable described Ingraham’s law office as “relatively small but nicely appointed.”

Ingraham at the time worked there alone with just a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded.

The cable said, “Ingraham freely admitted that he was not very active in Parliament and didn’t anticipate that he would become more active any time soon.

He said he still considers himself an FNM, and will vote with the FNM parliamentarians, but is taking no role in ongoing party politics.

“When asked if he would complete his term or retire completely from politics, Ingraham said he hadn’t given it much thought.”

The embassy official wrote: “Ingraham quickly warmed to the political discussion however, and his love for the game sparkled in his eyes” as he discussed a broad range of topics.

'AMBITIOUS INCOMPETENTS'

Addressing the management style of then Prime Minister Perry Christie, Ingraham said he has always been weak and indecisive and lacks vision, but is a good man.

Ingraham, according to the cable, also said however that Christie is the only one in the PLP with broad enough appeal to bring in swing voters, largely because he, unlike many other PLP politicians, is viewed as “trustworthy” and “solid”.

Ingraham said even FNMs don’t fear for the country with Christie in charge, as he is unlikely to do anything rash, the cable said.

Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “a collection of ambitious incompetents”.

He termed the PLP government’s legislative agenda non-existent, and vigorously defended his record during his 10 years in office, claiming to have no regrets.

Ingraham told the embassy official that he and Christie remained good friends and talked by phone a couple times a week.

“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said he offered advice to Christie regularly.

“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.”

Ingraham said, “Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change.”

He also alleged that Christie had no real vision other than a general desire to improve social programs, and nothing he really wanted to accomplish, the cable said.

Ingraham contrasted Christie with himself, saying he had come in with a definite agenda and moved decisively to accomplish it, whereas Christie “enjoys being prime minister” but doesn’t really feel any urgency to get things done.

The cable said: “Combined with the fact that he loves his job, Ingraham sees Christie as firmly implanted in the PLP leadership and consequently, the PM’s office.”

“It would take dynamite to get him out of that seat,” said Ingraham, when asked if he thought Christie would run for another term.

The cable reveals that Ingraham had nothing good to say about the cabinet of his friend Perry Christie, although he was generally complimentary about Christie.

“Once you get past Perry, what have you got?” he was quoted as saying.

Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “inexperienced, incompetent and politically unschooled.”

He also said many of them harbor political ambitions and have their own agendas, and shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them, the cable said.

Ingraham said he “never would have tolerated such behavior” in his own cabinet.

He sympathized with Christie, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.

The cable said: “Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed, with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that that was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”

In fact, Ingraham said he believed the PLP had squandered its mandate almost immediately and no longer enjoyed the support of the people, because of its inaction and political stumbles.

THOUGHTS ON THE FNM

But in 2003 Ingraham was not only critical of the PLP, a read of the cable shows.

He acknowledged that just because the PLP was losing support that didn’t mean that people were ready to turn back to the FNM.

He said that the FNM had a lot of work to do before it would be competitive politically again.

What was most needed, he said, was unity.

According to Ingraham, many of the FNM’s wounds were self-inflicted, and he had harsh criticism for former ministers Algernon Allen and Tennyson Wells, who attacked the leadership process that saw them unsuccessfully challenge Turnquest, Ingraham’s handpicked successor, and then complained bitterly in public about Ingraham’s stacking the deck, the cable said.

It added that Ingraham “vehemently but unconvincingly” denied influencing the leadership process and defended Turnquest as “the best man for the job at the time.”

The cable said Ingraham did criticize Turnquest’s decision to accept a celebratory party financed by a contractor doing business with his ministry, saying it gave the PLP and Allen and Wells a convenient target.

Ingraham said it was an “unfortunate decision”. According to the cable, he thought it was very damaging to Turnquest’s chances in the next leadership election.

“Nonetheless,” the cable continued, “Ingraham predicted that Tommy would survive any leadership challenge in the upcoming May FNM convention.

“In fact, he predicted that no serious challenge would emerge at this convention.

“According to Ingraham, those most likely to challenge Tommy Turnquest would lay low at this convention, since they don’t really have any desire to be the leader of an opposition party for the next four years, and would bring out their serious challenge at the next convention, which he predicted would be in another 18 months, by which time the next election would already be in sight on the horizon.”

In 2005, Ingraham entered the leadership race, and again emerged as the leader of the FNM.

He took the party into the 2007 election, promoting his trust agenda, and wrested power from Christie and the PLP.

Today, Ingraham is seeking a fourth non-consecutive term in office.

5/23/2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Hubert Ingraham: “Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever...", says a United States Embassy official in Nassau

The Ingraham logs: An analysis


By ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com


As a sitting opposition member of Parliament (MP) in April 2003, more than a year after he had stepped aside as leader of the Free National Movement, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham bragged with apparent delight to a U.S. Embassy official that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.

That some within the country and in the FNM laid the blame of the party’s embarrassing 2002 election defeat squarely at his feet only seemed to fuel his widely perceived arrogance.

That his critics pointed to the disastrous constitutional referendum and the poor handling of the FNM’s leadership transition as major contributors to the FNM’s defeat only seemed to cement Ingraham’s conviction that “it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost”.

“According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Tommy Turnquest in his shadow,” the official wrote in a confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained exclusively by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.

“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM’s loss. ‘I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses,’ Ingraham said, but added with fire in his voice, ‘And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997’.”

The conversation with then U.S. Embassy Political/Economics Chief Brian Bachman took place on April 8 in what was then Ingraham’s law office in Cable Beach.

The cable goes into surprising detail: “Pol/Econ chief called on Ingraham at his Cable Beach office which was relatively small but nicely appointed. Ingraham works there alone, with just a single employee, a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded. He did not seem terribly busy, as the phone rang only twice during the hour-and-a-half long conversation, and neither call seemed work-related. His desk was near empty and his TV was turned to CNN to watch war news."

The conversation was characterized in the cable as a wide-ranging discussion of his tenure in office and current political developments.

It provides a unique insight into what our greatest ally — the U.S. — thought of Ingraham at the time.

It also provides insight into Hubert Ingraham’s complex political persona.

‘SELF-CONFIDENT, UNAPOLOGETIC AND ARROGANT’

In the comment section at the end of the cable, the Embassy official had this to say:

“Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever, Ingraham still has a forceful and formidable presence.

“Currently inactive in Parliament and largely out of the public view, he obviously is still keeping a close eye on political events both inside and outside the party, and we have little doubt that he still has influence within the FNM if he chooses to use it.

“Ingraham is still a relatively young man for a politician, and seems to have little desire to return to his former trade (the law).

“If the (Perry) Christie government continues to struggle against a weak economy and the widespread perception that it is inactive, and Bahamian voters begin to feel a little nostalgia for the strong hand on the tiller, we wouldn’t be surprised if Hubert Ingraham reemerges as a potential ‘savior’ for his party and The Bahamas.”

Hubert Ingraham ended up doing just that.

At the time of the conversation, Ingraham claimed that he had no intention of defending his seat in 2007, and did not intend to take an active role in the upcoming FNM convention, but “when asked directly if he would ever consider re-entering politics, Ingraham dodged the question completely”, according to the cable.

“He did admit that various people within the FNM continued to push him to retake the leadership, however, and refused several clear opportunities to say he was definitely not interested.”

Less than three years after that conversation he was convincingly returned as leader of the FNM after running against his hand-picked successor, Tommy Turnquest.

And in 2007 he was elected prime minister for a third non-consecutive term — although the FNM won by a small margin, and it was well below the numbers that Ingraham had predicted while on the 2007 campaign trail.

CONTRADICTIONS

The contradiction between what was said and what eventually took place is an example of the contradictory and mixed character traits that are not foreign to politics, but have come to define Ingraham the politician.

Hubert Ingraham is seen by most Bahamians as extremely competent, hardworking and smart.

Throughout the U.S. cables, Ingraham is referred to as “sharply focused on issues”, “a man of action”, “pragmatic, “no-nonsense”.

Many see him as a man of integrity who means the best. But there is a clear sense that he can be ruthless when necessary. There is also a strong streak of stubbornness that in the past has gotten him into trouble — the Clifton Cay development and Constitutional Referendum.

As noted by Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently, Ingraham can be both arrogant and exemplify simplicity at the same time.

He is usually himself and does not put on airs. He lives in a modest home, has modest tastes, and is not given to extravagance in his habits. But he can also be arrogant and highhanded, seen often in his administration’s penchant for not seeing the importance of communicating to the public why its policies are important to the country.

He can be brash and removed, yet very accessible to the average Bahamian. His home telephone is listed in the phone book and he often answers the phone himself.

The same man who can be crude at times in terms of language and brashness, can also be quite charming when necessary.

Hubert Ingraham can also let his temper get the best of him, hitting out unnecessarily and at a cost to himself and others. Yet he can show restraint in not responding to some of his regular critics.

Ingraham is genuinely democratic when it comes to national issues and his administrations have moved to implement a number of measures that have improved democracy. Opening up the airwaves, drafting revised libel laws, among them.

However, he is famously autocratic party-wise. And while some in his Cabinet say it is much more consensual than many imagine, he can push into a minister’s ministry if he believes something is not getting done.

According to the cable, while discussing Christie’s Cabinet with Bachman, Ingraham said, “many of them harbor further political ambitions and have their own agendas,” and he shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them.

“Ingraham said he ‘never would have tolerated such behavior’ in his own Cabinet, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a Cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.

“Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that this was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”

Many political observers have been left to wonder about the curious events that lead to Ingraham’s return to the FNM as leader.

It was not until the last minute that it was revealed that Ingraham would offer himself for the leadership of the FNM, directly challenging Turnquest.

On the morning of the elections, Turnquest told reporters at the party’s convention that Ingraham had called him directly and assured him that he would not be running.

Hours later Ingraham was escorted to the podium, heralded as a savior of the party. His wife Delores was nowhere to be seen.

Ingraham is famous for keeping key decisions well-guarded, but the seemingly last-minute decision to run as leader could easily be seen as a deep betrayal, even though the party appears to have moved beyond that chapter.

Another obvious contradiction is his relationship with long-time political foe, and personal friend, Progressive Liberal Party leader Perry Christie.

Ingraham and Christie will beat up on each other on certain matters, but never on personal issues.

In the same cable covering the political discussion in 2003, under the heading ‘Perry and Hubert’, according to the U.S. Embassy official Ingraham said that he and Perry Christie remained good friends and they talked by phone a couple of times a week.

“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said that he offered advice to Christie regularly.

“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.

“Ingraham said, ‘Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change’.”

POLITICAL MISCALCULATION?

Asked by the Embassy official if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently, if given the opportunity, Ingraham reportedly quickly responded, “Absolutely not!”

“He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he had set out to do.

“On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been handled better, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again.”

Regarding the failed constitutional referendum, Ingraham denied that it was a factor in the FNM’s loss, according to the cable.

“In fact, he said, he had already become convinced by January of 2002 that the FNM would lose the general election, and scheduled the referendum because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”

According to the cable, Ingraham refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation.

Only Hubert Ingraham knows just how genuine those words were, or if he was simply re-writing events of the past to protect his political legacy.

An election is on the horizon, and Ingraham and his FNM can ill-afford any political miscalculations in the current political environment.

5/23/2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

The analysis of the United States Embassy in Nassau of the Bahamian political scene is comprehensive and insightful

A U.S. view of Perry Christie

By BRENT DEAN
Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com



The analysis by officials from the United States Embassy in Nassau of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and its leader Perry Christie after he announced the 2007 general election in April of that year, reveals that even though the Americans perceived the PLP and Christie as friendly bilateral partners, they also held the view that the Christie-led PLP was indecisive and disorganized, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian from WikiLeaks.

"The timing of the elections are typical of Christie's style of governance — uncertain, waiting until the last possible moment, with action forced by outside events rather than strategic planning," said the embassy in the cable which was labeled as confidential.

The cable is titled, “PM Christie calls May 2 elections; tight race expected”. It was listed as classified by the then embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Brent Hardt. The last name of then Ambassador John Rood is at the end of the cable.

It is unclear who wrote the document. It may be a compilation of the insights of various officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nassau.

The embassy's analysis of the Bahamian political scene is comprehensive and insightful. The cable noted that Christie lost an opportunity to call elections earlier in order to capitalize on Free National Movement (FNM) infighting.

In the fall of 2005, FNM MP for North Abaco and former party leader Hubert Ingraham entered the FNM leadership race and defeated incumbent party leader Tommy Turnquest after assuring Turnquest he would not run in the race.

Despite the confusion that ensued in the FNM from Ingraham's Machiavellian move, Christie waited for nearly a year and a half to call the general election. Christie and the PLP lost that election.

The decision by Christie to call the election at nearly the last moment allowed Ingraham time to raise money, rebuild the ‘FNM machine’ and to revive his image.

"Christie's decision to call elections now, also forced by outside deadlines, has risked church backlash against the PLP – no small thing in The Bahamas – by breaking tradition and calling elections and starting campaigns over Easter weekend," the cable continued.

"Usually, one would not bet against an incumbent party running on a strong economy, low unemployment and pending projects promising billions to the nation. However, poor management and indecisive leadership, combined with questions about the integrity of PLP parliamentarians have made this a race to watch."

The Americans accurately perceived PLP weakness in the run-up to the general election. Christie, however, appeared as confident in private as he was in public that the PLP would win the 2007 election.

The cable said that during an April 4 meeting with Rood, Christie boasted that his brilliant and incisive cutting of the constituency boundaries in the country would make the difference in a close election.

References to meetings between Bahamian and U.S. officials are common throughout the cables. The Americans took detailed notes of these meetings and created complex briefs for their files on the thoughts, words and perceptions of those they met with.

The U.S. Embassy perception of the two leaders of the two main Bahamian political parties in the run-up to the election was similar to that held by many Bahamians then and now.

“On the issues there is little to separate the parties. Bahamian politics is largely based on personality rather than policy, and the elections will likely be decided on the leadership styles of PLP leader Perry Christie and FNM leader Hubert Ingraham,” said the embassy in the cable.

“Ingraham is known from his time as prime minister as a decisive leader who accomplished much while suppressing dissension. His critics claim he rode roughshod over opponents.

“Christie has a well-deserved reputation as a waffling, indecisive leader, who procrastinates and often fails to act altogether while awaiting an elusive consensus in his Cabinet.”

The FNM and Ingraham share the same view of Christie. However, Christie has repeatedly rejected this label. He has said that he is a leader who consults in order to make proper decisions that do not have to be reversed.

Christie has also argued that crime was lower during his administration and the economy was in better shape as compared to the current state of affairs under the Ingraham administration.

Despite this brisk critique of Christie by the U.S., the Americans explicitly expressed confidence in both sides of the Bahamian political divide.

“Regardless of who wins, the United States can expect a strong partner in the Bahamian government. The PLP, while more left-leaning than the FNM, has been a valuable ally in law enforcement and an array of bilateral initiatives, including mega-ports and the Container Security Initiative,” said the embassy in the cable.

The cable added that while it took significant effort by embassy officials, the PLP government ultimately supported the U.S. on human rights and Security Council membership votes at the United Nations, “providing hope for greater multilateral cooperation from the PLP.”

However, the embassy did think that the FNM leaned more to its side.

“The FNM would likely be a stronger supporter of U.S. international goals and would take a more skeptical approach to Cuba – possibly even terminating the Cuban eye care program – and would certainly continue the excellent bilateral relationship we now enjoy,” according to the cable.

5/23/2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party - are as much a threat to the governing Free National Movement (FNM) - as Perry Christie and his Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)

Rallying the FNM's troops
thenassauguardian editorial




When Branville McCartney launched his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) last week who was in attendance at the launch was as interesting as what was said by McCartney.

The Free National Movement (FNM) usually dominates in the wealthier parts of the country.

Constituencies such as Yamacraw, Killarney, Clifton, St. Anne’s and Montagu are out of the reach of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). For various reasons, the middle and upper classes lean FNM.

At McCartney’s launch in that filled room at the Wyndham Cable Beach Resort, the people who looked excited, the people who chanted, the people who listened attentively dressed in their nice clothing looked like members of the same demographic groups the FNM does well in.

If an FNM landslide was imminent, losing a few supporters would not really matter. That would only mean that the party’s margins of victory in the various constituencies would be less.

In a close election, however, losing 100 to 200 FNM votes per constituency to a third party could cost the FNM most of the swing seats in the country.

We do not think FNM leader and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham fears McCartney. However, he should fear the loss of FNM votes at a time when the electorate still appears closely divided between the two main parties.

To avoid this Ingraham would need to take a divisive stand and not ignore McCartney. He would need to tell FNMs that a vote for McCartney is a vote for the PLP, as each FNM vote that goes to a party that cannot form a government makes it easier for PLP leader Perry Christie to take back the government.

Older leaders tend to dismiss young upstarts. The old chief thinks the young man cannot threaten him because he has no experience and no record. And sadly, the sycophants (yes-men) who surround political leaders allow them to believe they are invincible. If the chief says the newcomer cannot threaten him, they agree.

Ingraham must avoid this trap if he wants to be prime minister a fourth time. McCartney is as much a threat to the FNM as Christie – just in a different way. A successful FNM will need all of its base onboard. McCartney would need to be branded as a tool of the PLP, in a way, to ensure that the base does not transgress and support a FNM son who has for the time being gone rouge.

To be sure he is getting the right advice, the PM should also ensure that his inner circle includes some people who regularly tell him things he does not like to hear; and things he does not believe. This election will be tough. All assumptions need to be set aside and the political landscape and mood need to be realistically assessed if the governing party is to be successful.

All of those men and women who think every word and thought uttered by the leader is gospel are as dangerous as the other parties. They help leaders believe their inaccurate perceptions and bad ideas are brilliant. Sober antagonistic advice is more useful.

A battle looms at the polls. The party that embraces wise strategy, discipline and organization will win.

5/18/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Perry Christie - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader says: Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party are not ready to fight in a "real political boxing match."

“McCartney Not Ready”

By Sasha L. Lightbourne
jonesbahamas



A lot has been said in the wake of the official launch of Branville McCartney’s Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party.

But according to Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader, Perry Christie, the former state minister of immigration, is not ready to fight in a "real political boxing match."

In fact, Mr. Christie dubbed the DNA’s launch at the Wyndham Nassau Resort last week as "one big party."

"He has taken a very bold step," Mr. Christie said in an interview with the Bahama Journal yesterday.

"However, in my view, he has precedents of persons who have tried third party politics before and have not succeeded or even come near to succeeding. I think he has ignored those precedents and done so to his detriment, but it is clear that he has been encouraged by a body of opinion that exists in the country that believe we should have an alternative to the Free National Movement (FNM) and the PLP or rather to Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham."

Mr. Christie, who has been in the political arena for close to four decades, said it is going to take more than a few Bahamian singers and new faces to win the Bahamian people over.

"When people come to vote, they will have to make a decision as to the future of their country and they will make a decision on the basis of real politics, that is parties with the capacity to govern and that is where Mr. McCartney has an incredible challenge and a major gap in what he is trying to do," he said.

"People will have to make a decision not on whether they give someone a seat, but on whether the people who they are voting for will form the next government and my opinion is that Mr. McCartney is not going to be in that consideration."

During the DNA’s launch, Mr. McCartney introduced Chelphene Cunningham as his party’s candidate for Garden Hills; Floyd Armbrister for Exuma; Sammy "Sammy Starr" Poitier for South Beach; Farrel Goff for Clifton; Ben Albury for Montagu; Adrian Laroda for MICAL; Roscoe Thompson for South Abaco; Charlene Paul for Elizabeth and Alfred Poitier for Kennedy.

Mr. McCartney hopes to retain his seat as the Bamboo Town MP.

But according to Mr. Christie, Bahamians will not be swayed by new faces, but by those who have stood the test of time.

In a recent statement, the PLP noted that on the face of it, the structure and function of the DNA is "rank with the stench of dictatorship."

"There is no published constitution that governs the structure, function, policies and processes of the DNA," the release said.

"There is no executive committee or council to provide the executing mechanisms that form the basis of the DNA’s policies and processes. It appears that Mr. McCartney is a self-appointed leader who in turn appointed a chairman. He apparently unilaterally appointed his candidates. To the casual political observer, this is not democracy, but dictatorship in its rankest form."

Mr. Christie again stressed that his party remains focused on preparing itself for winning the next general elections and that he believes the PLP is only one of two parties that can achieve that goal.

May 19th, 2011

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International