...many individuals continue to weigh in on the possible causes of the Free National Movement’s (FNM) defeat... the victory of Perry G. Christie and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)... and the Democratic National Alliance’s (DNA) impact on the 2012 general election

Why the FNM lost and the PLP won

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

Although the general election is over, arguably the election season is yet to come to a close.  There is at least one imminent by-election in North Abaco following the announcement by former Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham that he will resign from this seat on July 19, 2012.  Meanwhile many individuals continue to weigh in on the possible causes of the Free National Movement’s (FNM) defeat, the victory of Perry G. Christie and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Democratic National Alliance’s (DNA) impact.

It is apparent that a number of factors contributed to the FNM’s loss even though it is difficult to unequivocally state which particular issue impacted the voting population the most.  The most obvious contributors to the aforementioned defeat from a macro-economic perspective were the poor state of the economy, record unemployment levels, inflation, labor unrest, the perceived opaque immigration policy of the FNM government and rising crime levels.

It has been suggested that the FNM’s insistence on turning the entire election campaign into a leadership and/or personality contest between Ingraham and Christie played a significant role in the downfall of the FNM.  This coupled with what many deemed to be a growing tyrannical and dictatorial style of leadership by Ingraham is also being cited as part of the reasons for the FNM’s loss and the PLP’s landslide victory.  As can be expected, a rejection of Ingraham by the electorate would spell doom for the FNM.  The perceived incidents of fragmentation, scandals and corruption within the Ingraham administration that prompted voluntary or involuntary resignations of long-time politicians along with constituency reassignments also played a role in the outcome of the elections.

The Ingraham administration also had its fair share of controversy including the sale of the Bahamas Telecommunication Company (BTC) to a foreign-owned firm over and above Bahamians, significant cost overruns and delays in the New Providence Road Improvement Project that also contributed to the closure of several small to medium-sized businesses and the perpetuation of a monopoly of the nation’s most important gateway by way of a public-private partnership agreement to an elite group of families through the Arawak Port Development.

Notably, the FNM could also be accused of political tokenism – an exercise in which under-represented groups are placed in races that they have little or no chance of winning.  Arguably this occurred with some FNM newcomers and female candidates who were placed in historically PLP strongholds or incumbent constituencies.  The constituencies of Englerston, Bains Town and Grants Town, Centreville, Golden Gates, Tall Pines, Fox Hill and West Grand Bahama and Bimini readily come to mind.  These constituencies, for the most part, witnessed PLP candidates commanding the majority of the votes by a minimum margin of 645 to a maximum of approximately 1,390 votes.  As admitted by the FNM’s chairman, the party failed to attract the female vote – this in spite of the FNM’s impressive fielding of nine female candidates.  The PLP, however, fielded five female candidates, four of which were successful compared to one for the FNM.

Rejection

In the midst of it all, it appears that the electorate rejected the FNM’s approach to the myriad socio-economic issues that plagued the country during its term in office.  Further, on the campaign trail, the FNM’s message focused mainly on its delivery of infrastructure projects.  The FNM, however, failed to “touch the pulse” of the people who for the most part were suffering due to unemployment, the rising cost of energy, food prices, foreclosures and high taxes just to name a few.

Ingraham’s strategy of painting Christie as weak, indecisive, unable to control his ministers who were all eager to get their hands on the proverbial “cookie jar” was obviously ineffective and failed to resonate with an electorate that had become weary of that old form of “politicking”.

An analysis of the PLP’s modus operandi and efforts during the 2012 election campaign is imperative in order to complete this piece.  The former prime minister, the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling, in response to a question as to the reason for the PLP’s success at the polls was quoted in The National Observer’s January 14, 1967 edition as stating: “Organization, good candidates, red-hot issues, complete unity”.

The aforementioned quote can easily sum up the PLP’s 2012 election campaign.  It was clear from the beginning that the PLP led an organized campaign by campaigning on the issues that affected the Bahamian people the most – crime, economic recovery and job creation.  These were obvious issues in the wake of increased criminal activities, widespread economic hardship and joblessness.  Further, the PLP introduced what it coined as “a new generation of leaders” who in the run-up to the general election (when compared to their FNM counterparts) spent months to years on the ground in their respective constituencies, made many platform appearances at constituency office openings, rallies and the talk show circuit.  These provided them with opportunities for increased exposure and introduction to the electorate.

Finally, the success of any political party at the polls hinges on the ability of its members to be unified and stand together.  During the election campaign, the PLP spoke with one voice and had a common understanding which allowed for the resonance of its message.

As for the impact of the DNA, there are some 20 parliamentary seats that could have changed the results for the PLP or FNM but for the DNA’s presence.  However, the absence of the DNA may have also resulted in low voter turn-out in a general election that witnessed high voter registration with a record 172,000 voters.

The DNA’s showing was historic and impressive as it garnered approximately eight percent of the electoral vote, the highest by far for a third party.  The party’s presence deepened our democracy, provided voters with an alternative and forced the established parties to improve their political campaigns. Their future existence and relevance will depend on their commitment to “stay on the ground” and be a formidable opposition from the side-lines.

Considering the 14-year rise to power of the PLP and the 20-year journey of the FNM, it will benefit the DNA to study these parties’ voyages.  Invaluable lessons abound for the DNA in the successes and failures of the PLP and FNM in the past.  The DNA and its supporters should draw inspiration from the rise of the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom whose ascension in UK politics led to the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition in 2010, the first in Britain’s history since World War II.  The Liberal Democrats’ victory silenced naysayers that had asserted that third parties have no place in a Westminster system.  With a clear philosophy, purpose and perseverance, the DNA can hope for a similar testimony in future.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: commentary@komolafelaw.com

May 17, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Moody's credit rating agency warned that the Progressive Liberal Party’s election-promised mortgage plans created a “moral hazard” that “could increase Bahamian mortgage delinquencies ...and cost the Bahamas Government a sum equivalent to 3.1 per cent of GDP ...spread over five years,”...

A Reckless Promise That Might Founder

tribune242 editorial


.

TUESDAY’S first cabinet meeting of the newly-elected PLP government, marked Day One of its first 100 days of governing, Prime Minister Perry Christie announced. Day One was also marked with a warning salvo from Moody’s Investment Services, one of three major credit rating agencies.

One could say that the new government entered its second term with a bang, but the bang did not bring good news. The credit agency warned that the PLP’s election-promised mortgage plans created a “moral hazard” that “could increase Bahamian mortgage delinquencies and cost the Government a sum equivalent to 3.1 per cent of GDP spread over five years,” Tribune Business reported. Moody’s saw the move as demonstrating a “lack of commitment” on the part of the new administration to tackle annual fiscal deficits running at over 4 per cent of gross domestic product.

Moody’s described the election-promised mortgage relief plan as “a credit negative,” implying that its implementation could lead to a further downgrade rating. Something, said Moody’s, that could scare away foreign investors and increase the Bahamas’ borrowing debt servicing costs in the international capital markets. It was pointed out that with economic growth and recovery a top priority, the last thing the Bahamas needed was to send the wrong message that would deter foreign direct investment, Tribune Business reported.

It was also the last thing the PLP government would want to deal with considering the hoop-la it raised last year when Moody’s downgraded the country from “stable” to “negative” due to the mounting debt accrued over the past decade. Earlier that year — in May — Standard & Poor affirmed its BBB+ rating for the Bahamas. Up to that time, the Bahamas maintained an A3 government bond rating.

The PLP were scathing in its remarks condemning the downgrade. It said the Moody downgrade “confirms government’s mismanagement”.

Of course, they were referring to the FNM government, which, in turn, explained that the recent global economic and financial crisis necessitated the “extraordinary levels of spending” despite a “precipitous” decline in revenue.

It explained that funds were needed to “safeguard the financial system, boost economic activity and provide assistance to Bahamians badly in need of help in these trying times”. The PLP would have none of it. Now faced with the same problem, its desperation appears to be tempting it to commit political suicide.

Despite being aware of the critical financial situation, on the campaign trail Mr Christie promised the impossible to voters. Now that the time has come to deliver, he is going to find it difficult to explain that he might not be able to keep his commitment.

In a 10-point plan of delivery, he promised Bahamians who had defaulted on their mortgages and had lost their homes to banks, that he would — among other things — get banks to agree to write off 100 per cent of unpaid interest and fees for all those facing foreclosure.

In Mr Christie’s opinion, “this should be acceptable to the banks as they would already have made provisions against these losses”.

“Therefore, writing off the unpaid interest and fees would have no immediate financial impact on the banks,” he said.

“As for the delinquent borrowers, they would benefit from the fact that their outstanding balances would fall substantially.”

Rather than the Christie plan being acceptable to bank managers, the very thought sent shivers down their spines. They knew that this would be a signal for Bahamians to stop their mortgage payments in the knowledge that not only would rates be lowered, but their debt would eventually be written off by government.

According to Moody’s, there is some $3.2 billion worth of outstanding mortgage loans in the Bahamas’ banking system, which is equivalent to 39.6 per cent of GDP.

The situation is so delicate that today bankers are unwilling to speak to the press about the problem.

However, one banker told Tribune Business that as a result of the new government’s promises, “banks are already seeing a deterioration in arrears for mortgages under 90 days past due”.

“Those under 90 days past due have increased since the PLP announced its scheme. We were alarmed at the trend,” said the banker.

We all feel sorry for any family who has lost their home, but in trying to rescue them, the PLP government cannot torpedo the whole Bahamas.

They have to stop and think again.

May 17, 2012


tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

And so the torch has been passed once again... and Perry Christie has been given a second chance to rectify some of the missteps of his last term... ...We are confident that he is aware that there is a very thin line between love and hate... that the electorate is impatient... and that there is a very high expectation that his new government will lead The Bahamas to greater heights in the days ahead...

The voice of the people

By Philip C. Galanis

“The voice of the people is the voice of God.” – Sir Lynden Pindling

What a difference a day makes.  Monday, May 7, 2012 will be recorded in Bahamian history as a day when the Bahamian people spoke loudly and unequivocally, although their behavior was anything but.  In fact, when Bahamians went to the polls, they quietly exercised their constitutionally guaranteed democratic right, emphatically asserting their displeasure with the Free National Movement (FNM) government.  The outcome of the election was a resounding rejection of the leadership of Hubert Ingraham and his government’s management of the country from 2007 to 2012.  This week, we would like to Consider This...what really happened on Election Day, 2012 and what lessons, if any, are to be learned about governance and the will of the people?

A macro-analysis

The results of the elections, as confirmed by the parliamentary registrar, indicate that the majority of the nearly 156,000 persons who cast their votes — a turnout of 91 percent of the registered voters — rejected Ingraham’s belligerent behavior that bordered on tyranny, representing a leadership style that was not to be tolerated and had to be terminated.

Nearly 76,000, or 49 percent, of the voters supported the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and another 13,422, or nine percent, supported the fledgling Democratic National Alliance (DNA), making a combined total of nearly 58 percent of the voters who rejected the Free National Movement (FNM).  Of the 38 seats that were contested, the PLP won 29 seats; the FNM won nine seats with 65,651 votes; and the DNA did not win any.

The professional pollsters predicted that the election results would be close and no one publically forecasted the resounding landslide.  There were two seats where the victor won with a razor-slim margin of less than 25 votes, six seats where the winner edged out by less than 100 votes, and 11 seats where the winner won by less than 200 votes.

The FNM won only three of the 23 seats in New Providence, both seats in Abaco, two of the five seats in Grand Bahama, and two of the eight seats in the other Family Islands.  Only four of Ingraham’s 17 Cabinet ministers survived the contest, with notable losses by veteran politicians Tommy Turnquest, Zhivargo Laing, Desmond Bannister, Charles Maynard and Carl Bethel.

The most difficult call in the election was the effect that the DNA would have on the outcome, but its presence was impactful.  In fact, there were several seats where, but for the presence of the DNA, the PLP would have likely taken the seats that the FNM wound up winning.  This was most evident in Montagu and Central Grand Bahama where the combined votes of the PLP and the DNA outnumbered those cast for the FNM.  This suggestion is supported by the hypothesis that the DNA votes were in fact anti-FNM votes.

Lessons learned

There are at least four lessons that can be learned from the election results.  First, we are a two-party system and, once again, these elections confirmed that the presence of a third party in the body politic is largely irrelevant and inconsequential as regards its ability to form a government, although its existence affected the election outcome.

The second lesson was that when Bahamians have lost faith in a political party, they will unceremoniously and decisively vote them out.  We saw this in 1992, 2002, 2007 and again in 2012.

The third lesson is that Bahamians fully comprehend the power of their votes and that the social contract between politicians and the people has a five-year life span, sometimes less as was the case in the Elizabeth by-election, but certainly not longer than five years.  Ingraham has now joined Perry Christie in being booted out of office after just one term.  Bahamians have proven that they will not tolerate arrogance, negligence, scandals, despotism or corruption.

The fourth lesson is that Grand Bahama is no longer FNM country, precipitated by the government’s gross neglect of the pain and suffering of the residents of that island over the last five years.  For the first time in decades, the PLP has won the majority of seats on Grand Bahama, proving once again that if the social contract is unfulfilled, there will be consequences.

Sore losers

It was amazing and disappointing to note the reaction of both the press and the vanquished.  In a Tribune editorial of Tuesday, May 8, the day after the general election, the editor of that tabloid noted: “Bahamians went to the polls yesterday and showed the depth of their ingratitude to a man who had dedicated 35 selfless years to their service.”

What drivel, what arrogance, what utter rubbish.  The editor, more than many, should appreciate that the mandate that is given to any politician and any government is for five years, and to reject them for whatever reason is the voters’ constitutional right.  We invite the editor to join us in the 21st century and recognize that that kind of patronizing plantation posturing offends the inalienable right and civic obligation to tell any leader — PLP, FNM, DNA or otherwise — that we have had enough of you, your policies and bullying tactics and that we invite you to leave and leave now.

We also observed Ingraham’s ungracious reaction to his thorough trouncing by the Bahamian people.  In an interview with the press days after being completely rejected, Ingraham “hinted” that bribery was involved in the PLP’s win on Monday.  How can he make such a claim with a straight face?  What did the former prime minister think he was doing when he embarked upon a massive contract signing marathon after calling the elections; or when he offered temporary jobs to voters in order to win their support at the polls; or when he approved last-minute citizenship for countless applicants who had been awaiting such approval for years; or when he increased public servants’ salaries on the eve of elections and extended other such political patronage that he doled out days before the elections?

Bribery comes in many forms, shapes and sizes and is fully recognizable even when incognito, camouflaged as a contract, a job, citizenship or otherwise.  If Ingraham would seriously reflect on this matter, perhaps he might appreciate that the Bahamian people told him and his ministers on May 7 that they were tired of him, and his bully tactics, his belligerent behavior, his one-man band approach to governance, his Pied Piper complex, his arrogance and that of some of his colleagues.  As loudly as Bahamians spoke on Monday, you would have expected him to get the message that just maybe, “he is simply not the best”.

Conclusion

And so the torch has been passed once again and Christie has been given a second chance to rectify some of the missteps of his last term.  We are confident that he is aware that there is a very thin line between love and hate, that the electorate is impatient, and that there is a very high expectation that his new government will lead the country to greater heights in the days ahead.  Christie has first-hand knowledge that hard earned political currency, which often takes many years to amass, will be quickly spent if those expectations are not satisfied within a reasonable period of time.  Most importantly, Christie, like the rest of the new government, has clearly heard the voice of the people; we can but hope they are acutely aware that it is also the voice of God.

 

• 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

May 14, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

One thing that should be understood... is that the Free National Movement (FNM) is not a dead horse... ...After the 1997 general election – when Hubert Ingraham and the FNM won 57.6 per cent of the vote with a turnout of 92 per cent – commentators were convinced that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was headed straight for "the boneyard." ...The victory was so great that concerns were raised about the future of our two-party democracy ... even The Tribune feared the FNM would be so powerful that it could “lose its balance”

Looking To A Future After Ingraham

TOUGH CALL

By Larry Smith

SO Hubert Alexander Ingraham has been forced to exit, stage left – and just as his personality cult was kicking in big time.

A few days ago, a documentary “chronicling the life, upbringing, and achievements of the prime minister” began airing on television. The film focuses on “Ingraham’s inspirational journey from humble beginnings to the highest public office in service of the people”.

We hear that the impetus for this project came from the FNM's campaign consultants, but in my view it was entirely inappropriate for a sitting prime minister. That’s the sort of propaganda thing Lynden Pindling did without batting an eye when I was a junior writer at the Bahamas News Bureau in the 1970s and 80s. It’s not the sort of thing I would have expected Hubert Ingraham to endorse in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, the film climaxed an out-of-control “Papa” campaign played out to the tune of “Simply the Best” that had to have turned off some voters. I can understand the FNM’s fixation on the papa theme. They tried to turn a derisive label into a term of support (as they had successfully done with Pindling’s earlier taunt about Ingraham being a “delivery boy”). But I think the current effort was way over the top and backfired badly when combined with “Ingraham fatigue”.

Of course, Ingraham has been down and out before – in 2002, when the entire FNM cabinet was wiped out. But this time there will be no return – age and circumstance will see to that. It will be up to the FNM rump in the House of Assembly to choose a new leader from the nine, mostly new, MPs left standing. Dr Hubert Minnis and Loretta Butler Turner stand out from this reduced line-up.

In addition to doing the right thing and resigning as party leader, Ingraham also said he would not take up his North Abaco seat, throwing the FNM into an immediate leadership quandary at a point when most of the party’s second tier leaders – like Tommy Turnquest, Carl Bethel, Dion Foulkes and Zhivago Laing – have been turfed out. Presumably, their political careers are now over.

Ironically (and sadly for some), Ingraham’s retirement from public life came only one day after he asked the Bahamian people to give him a final chance to complete “the work of my lifetime”, by re-electing the FNM to a fourth non-consecutive term.

The prime minister was known to be grooming Abaconians to eventually replace him in the constituency that has elected him seven times before, but a potential successor may not have much interest in contesting a bye-election under the current circumstances. And although Hubert Minnis will likely become leader of the opposition in parliament, it is still unclear who the FNM Council will settle on as party leader.

One thing that should be understood is that the FNM is not a dead horse. After the 1997 election – when Ingraham and the FNM won 57.6 per cent of the vote with a turnout of 92 per cent – commentators were convinced that the PLP was headed straight for "the boneyard." The victory was so great that concerns were raised about the future of our two-party democracy – even The Tribune feared the FNM would be so powerful that it could “lose its balance”.

And within days of the election, Sir Lynden added to the PLP’s despair by stepping down after 32 years as party leader. That was only five years after the party had suffered its first and only major defeat in a quarter century of absolute ascendancy under Pindling’s leadership. But it was only five years before it won a stunning landslide upset in 2002.

Back then, an electorate of 145,000 gave Christie’s PLP 51.7 per cent of the vote to the FNMs 40.8 per cent, with a turnout of 89 per cent.

Only seven FNM MPs retained their seats. And to make matters worse, three FNMs who had split with the party over the leadership struggle were returned as independents, an unprecedented turn of events.

Nevertheless, Ingraham was able to lead the party to a hard-fought victory in 2007 despite unprecedented prosperity.

The complete 2012 election results were not available when this was written. They will require careful parsing over the next several days, but one factor stands out sharply at this stage. The DNA, formed just a year ago after Bran McCartney’s rift with Ingraham, drew more than 10,000 votes and effectively threw several seats to the PLP, without itself coming close to winning a single constituency.

As one insider put it, “in the 2007 election, 10 seats were decided by less than 100 votes. When you add the DNA to that mix the 2012 result is what you get”.

That may be putting it too strongly. But FNM supporters could be forgiven for considering this election as eerily reminiscent of the party’s internecine wars of the 1970s and 80s, which kept them out of power until 1992.

So the DNA’s singular achievement may have been its role in driving Hubert Ingraham into retirement. At the same time, it has forced the FNM to deal head on with its leadership succession. And we should remember that the lop-sided seat spread (28 to 10) doesn't reflect the same degree of disparity in terms of actual votes. In other words, the FNM still commands huge support throughout the country, and only a few percentage points divide the two parties.

The other consequence is that Perry Christie (who refused to bow out gracefully after his 2007 defeat) has been given a new lease on his political life, and the PLP has managed to reschedule its inevitable leadership struggle into the vague medium-term future. Still, it is very likely that Christie will be in the same boat as Ingraham once was once his term draws to a close.

Ingraham’s swan song as prime minister was a time of immense progress and much-needed infrastructural investment. But the fall-out from the Great Recession also made it a time of economic stress for average Bahamians, who expressed their discomfort by voting in sufficient numbers against the party in power.

Christie’s response at the PLP’s Clifford Park victory rally on Monday night was to remark on the “wonderful journey we've been on”, to note that “the storm is now over”, and to promise that his government would actually “perform” this time.

This election could be considered “a choice between the devil you know, and the devil you know who don't do nothing,” as one wag put it. But Ingraham's hardline style trumped Christie's lackadaisical record in the minds of many voters this time around.

If there is one conclusion we can draw from this election, it is this: “Both political parties have their good times and bad times, only they have them at different times.”

That is a quote from the American writer Will Rogers, referring to American politics.

Now let’s see what happens with BTC and BPC.

May 09, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Loretta Butler-Turner is now the closest woman to the highest seat of power in the nation... ...In Mrs Butler-Turner's favour, all around the world, women are assuming power... and that energy will have a powerful pull just the same... ...Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in Trinidad and Tobago... Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller in Jamaica... Maybe President Hillary Clinton (USA) in 2016... and maybe Prime Minister Loretta Butler-Turner for The Bahamas in 2017

Loretta Butler-Turner For 2017?

TALKING SENSE

By KHALILA NICOLLS

EVER since May 7 when the mighty Free National Movement (FNM) came tumbling down, the name Hubert Minnis, former Minister of Health, has been floated as the inevitable next leader of the Free National Movement (FNM).

The final tally left the FNM with only three members of parliament with parliamentary experience: the dinosaur Edison Key, who, safe to say, health challenges aside, has no shot at leadership, and probably no desire; Dr Minnis and Loretta Butler-Turner, former Minister of Social Services.

Mrs Butler-Turner is the underdog in the two-way race with Dr Minnis, but only because this is the political arena, where gender dynamics work against her. But I think the FNM, which is badly in need of repositioning, would be foolish to overlook her as a strong, if not the strongest, leadership option for the party.

Based on Mrs Butler-Turner's size and statue, her strong back and her sharp mouth, I think she could eat Dr Minnis for lunch in a competition for the strongest opposition leader in the House of Assembly.

I am not always a fan of Mrs Butler-Turner as far as conduct in parliament is concerned; she too is a part of a boorish culture that has come to define all of our parliamentarians, but I do see her as a stronger leader for the lean FNM flock, who will stand against the 29-member strong government majority.

Nonetheless, last night, the FNM confirmed the talk and announced Dr Minnis as leader of the opposition. It was predictable, but I only hope it does not reflect the party's dismissal of Mrs Butler-Turner.

No doubt, when the convention comes around, probably in June, the party will nominate and elect Dr Minnis as leader and Mrs Butler-Turner as deputy leader. She would be a unwise not to have higher ambitions, but she would also be a unwise to contest Dr Minnis at this time. Timing is everything, and five years is a long time. Both Dr Minnis and Mrs Butler-Turner will have ample time to prove their salt.

This is not to undermine Dr Minnis, who is a hugely popular figure in his constituency, and a relatively popular Minister of Health, with the ability to lead. However, the people's mandate for the FNM to get rid of the dinosaurs and the old dynasties was so dramatic that an equally bold shift in the party's outlook and approach would position it the best.

Tommy Turnquest, Dion Foulkes, Charles Maynard, Carl Bethel, Zhivargo Laing and Desmond Bannister were all rejected by voters. Within this cohort of losers was the assumed next leader, which is why the FNM is now in its leadership quandary.

The blow must be the most bitter for Mr Turnquest and Mr Foulkes, who descend from the founding fathers of the party and have spent most of their lives trying to live up to their families' legacies.

On the sunnyside up, however, the Bahamian voter did for the FNM what its stalwart counsellors could and would never do: clean house and go against conventional wisdom. It is a golden opportunity for the reorganisation of the party, for new faces to shine. Sort of like the opportunity Branville McCartney was looking for when he was in the FNM.

Dr Minnis ran an extremely effective ground campaign, probably the best in the FNM. It is a wonder why no one followed his lead. Prior to the election, I understand, he had leadership ambition, but he understood the competition: men who were not only anointed, but had a breadth of experience in the public service, which is something a prime minister ideally should have.

Mr Turnquest had been a minister of national security, works and tourism. Mr Foulkes had been a minister of youth, sports and culture and a minister of labour. Mr Laing had been the minister of state for finance.

Dr Minnis, being somewhat of an academic and analytical man according to insiders, wanted to leave the Ministry of Health where he had accomplished so much, according to sources. Dr Minnis entered politics with the skill set for health, and did not want to be pigeon holed. In the Ministry of Health, he was not really tested.

He wanted to stretch his wings, broaden his base by taking on the challenge of another ministry, so when time came, he would have all of his credentials and recommendations lined up. Sounds like smart politics, so the fact that the party's leadership dropped in his lap was ahead of schedule, but in a sense right on time.

But here is where Mrs Butler-Turner trumps Dr Minnis. When the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was in its early days, some observers say, it was former attorney general A D Hanna who was really the brains behind the operation, while Sir Lynden Pindling was the face.

Mr Hanna was the kingmaker but never the king. This is the difference between Mrs Butler-Turner and Dr Minnis in terms of their political strengths.

Dr Minnis is a well-organised man, but he is as mundane as he is organised. He does not evoke strong passions in people although he evokes confidence. What Mr Ingraham and Mr Christie have in common is that they are either loved or hated. Mr Ingraham's in the end was trumped by those who hated him.

Dr Minnis is a neutral figure, and politicians of this kind do not make strong leaders, because they have a hard time garnering followers.

Mrs Butler-Turner on the other hand, is an effective speaker and has a strong presence. She has the capacity to build a following, even though she has polarising qualities.

Before the election, I had predicted that the FNM would win big or lose big, for one simple reason. It was clear that key FNM MPs were given one mandate: deliver two seats (the one where they served in the last government, and the one where they were running on May 7). If they had, the FNM could have swept the election. FNM insiders had predicted 28 red seats, when in fact the FNM lost 28 and more.

Zhivargo Laing was one of the earliest cabinet ministers to fall, and with that the FNM virtually lost two seats. Sure enough, by the end of the night, Marco City, Mr Laing's old seat, had fallen. When Sydney Collie lost to V. Alfred Gray in MICAL that sealed the deal (if there was any doubt) about Leslie Miller's (PLP) chances in Tall Pines, Mr Collie's former Bluehill constituency.

The only FNM who delivered on the two-seat strategy was Loretta Butler-Turner, who despite the claims that she was ousted from Montagu in unpopularity, delivered Richard Lightbourne to the House in a heated contest against the PLP's Frank Smith. The FNM lost big because they gambled wrong with their two-seat strategy on everyone except Loretta. (Of course they underestimated the impact of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and had other challenges).

Montagu is usually assumed to be a secure seat for the FNM; however, given the climate, no seat was safe. It was not a surety that Mr Lightbourne would win, especially not against Mr Smith. And whereas Mrs Butler-Turner won by some 1,300 votes in the last election, Mr Lightbourne only won by a few hundred.

So give credit where credit is due. Mr Lightbourne of course, did his job, but he inherited Mrs Butler-Turner's Montagu team; friends and family in her childhood knocking ground, based on the boundary cuts; and her reputation, which while damaged was still intact. But more importantly, Mrs Butler-Turner also won her Long Island seat.

What is interesting is that while the dynasties fell, Hubert Ingraham's two buddies held firm. Mr Ingraham was said to have a strong relationship with Dr Minnis and to be the biggest backer of Mrs Butler-Turner.

In fact, some say Mr Ingraham is a feminist at heart. However, given the FNM's defeat, and Mr Ingraham's departure, many stalwart counsellors, who may have felt bound to the will of Mr Ingraham before, will now feel free.

Sources claim some FNM insiders resented how much say Mrs Butler-Turner had, asking Ingraham at times to muzzle her. They wondered why he would not put her in her place or shut her up. This came to a head with the proposed amendment to the Sexual Offences Act that was not popular amongst FNM MPs. Even Cabinet support was questionable.

On this particular issue, Mrs Butler-Turner has the female advantage. There is an old Jamaican saying, "tie the heifer, release the bull." However, in a political pen with many bulls the opposite would seem to make more sense, "tie the (other) bulls and release the heifer." Mrs Butler-Turner has never had to live in the shadow of "Papa" Ingraham, which cannot be said for any other male MP in the party.

With two bulls in a pen, there is by nature a competitive and antagonistic energy that subordinates the weaker of the two. Gender dynamics between men and women are different. Even where a woman may be more dominant, she will not likely be perceived as a threat for a man who is strong in his own character.

Loretta Butler-Turner is now the closest woman to the highest seat of power in the nation, notwithstanding Cynthia Pratt, who was acting prime minister. It is a heavy weight to shoulder, but I have no doubt Mrs Butler-Turner is capable of rising to the occasion.

The heartening part is that Mrs Butler-Turner is not just an MP in a skirt. She actually stands for women's rights. Let us hope she stays that way. Let us hope she does not turn into a partisan hack. Let us hope she puts principle before party, and people before self as a leader. Let us hope she takes wise counsel. Let us hope she brings substantive contributions to parliamentary debate, not just partisan reflections or lamentations about the good old days of "papa."

People who oppose Mrs Butler-Turner sometimes say she is short-tempered and elitist. If the former is true, she will certainly need to learn to temper her spirit. As far as being a snob, there are managable things she can do to change that perception. So she should get to it.

What I think a large part of the opposition boils down too, however, is that Mrs Butler-Turner is an outspoken woman with strong opinions, who does not easily back down. Opponents in and out of the party must hate that, especially when her ideas do not gel with their own.

As she jostles for a shot at leadership, no doubt women will be her harshest and most vocal critics. For them, her physical size, will probably be the most intimidating. I urge them to be honest and fair critics and not crab-in-the-barrel "haters."

In the past few years, governments have toppled all around the world. The FNM was swept up in that powerful force.

In Mrs Butler-Turner's favour, all around the world, women are assuming power: and that energy will have a powerful pull just the same. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in Trinidad and Tobago. Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller in Jamaica. Maybe President Hillary Clinton (USA) in 2016, and maybe Prime Minister Loretta Butler-Turner for the Bahamas in 2017.

It will be interesting to see how everything pans out.

Follow on Twitter @noelle_elleon or email khalilanicolls@gmail.com

May 10, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Setting the record straight on oil exploration in The Bahamas

Setting the record straight on oil exploration

By Dr. Paul Crevello

Politicizing is common in election years, especially when the initiator is feeling pressure to undermine his opponent.  It is happening in the U.S. presidential race, and it is certainly evident in Bahamian politics.  In this case, in reference to Bahamas Petroleum, what is being stated in the press needs attention.

As former CEO of Bahamas Petroleum, I was present when our licenses were submitted and approved and wish to clarify misconceptions.  I felt it was necessary to step forward and comment on the process BPC went through when applying for the exploration licenses, which was an arduous process with multiple stages of dialogue between the responsible agencies of the government, from the respective ministries, the Cabinet, the attorney general and eventually approval by the governor general.  The process took nearly two years and in the end was awarded under the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) term in 2007.  But, I wish to point out that the licenses were reviewed immediately upon the Free National Movement (FNM) entering office in May of 2007, and the FNM administration confirmed that the licenses were awarded following established government guidelines set in place by the Petroleum Act.  Therefore, the license application and approval process followed established government procedures, which was a multi-stage approval process that in the end both major political parties reviewed and approved.

What is important is the potential benefit to the country if oil is present and producible, and nothing more leaving politics aside.  There is oil in The Bahamas, but we do not know how much and if there is sufficient pool to be developed.  If so, then the people will be the ones who benefit over the long-term if the process continues to follow legal stipulations of the government and adhere to international safety standards.

Background

Both parties have awarded exploration licences in the past.  In 1983, the law firm of Christie and Ingraham was engaged by Tenneco for approval of drilling a well (drilled in 1986) in the southwest Bahamas.  In October 1999, the FNM awarded exploration licenses to a private “minnow” oil company, Liberty Oil concession, whose owner is a real estate developer, and in 2003, the PLP awarded exploration licenses to the U.S. major oil company Kerr McGee.  The PLP awarded licenses to BPC in 2007 and it became a publically traded company on the London AIM exchange in 2008.  Yes, we engaged Davis and Co. to represent the company and file our license applications.  But they were the only law firm qualified in the oil and gas sector and had experience with Kerr McGee.  So they were and still are the top firm in this field.

It took me several years to convince the Christie regime that there is a probability that commercial pools of oil may be discovered in The Bahamas.  Major oil companies have spent over a hundred million dollars in seismic exploration and drilling five wells in The Bahamas since 1948, all without mishap.  I had commissioned about US$50 million of technical studies, which were recently reported to have a one in two chance of finding four billion barrels of oil.  However, finding it is not the same as being able to get it out of the ground.  It is a complex process and could result in a multi-billion-dollar investment and still many years away from when the first well is drilled.

When the FNM took office in May 2007, I had to gain the confidence of the new administration that The Bahamas may become another Middle East – i.e., net oil producer and exporter.  It took me a couple of years and numerous presentations to convince the new government of this potential, and then it was at that time I introduced the government to the partnership I signed with Statoil of Norway, including audience with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.

During the FNM regime, I provided consultation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as to the location of the potential oil fields of the southern Bahamas waters, so these areas would be preserved for The Bahamas during negotiations with Cuba on the position of the international border.  I did not want this to be lost in negotiations.

I also suggested that the government initiate dialogue with the respective agencies of Norway, in order to learn how a fishing and lumber-dominated economy went to being one of the wealthiest sovereign funds in the world.  The ministry began dialogue with the government of Norway through political channels on drilling policy and establishment of a sovereign fund.  The FNM government was evaluating the necessary steps required to moving to an oil-producing nation and net exporter if oil was discovered.

Then, BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred in April 2010, and rightfully, the government chose to proceed with caution in evaluating the full impact of drilling in The Bahamas, establishing the safeguards to prevent a similar situation from happening in The Bahamas.  The FNM still discussed procedures with the Norway counterparts to strengthen policies for The Bahamas.

Regarding the licenses, Alan Burns, the founder of BPC, first applied for exploration licences in August 2005, following the protocol of the Bahamian Petroleum Act, which was based on UK North Sea regulations.  At the time Burns applied for the exploration licences, the last major entry into The Bahamas exploration was Kerr McGee in 2003, exiting in 2006.

BPCs license applications went through three approval processes; firstly with Minister Leslie Miller of the Ministry of Energy in early 2006.  Then following revisions, provisional approval was granted in late 2006 by the Permanent Secretary Camille Johnson, with final approval signed into effect in early 2007 by Dr. Marcus Bethel, minister of energy and the environment.

The applications then went to Governor General Arthur D. Hanna, whose duty it was to assess the merits and benefits to the country of assigning government lands for exploitation.  As would be expected of a request of such importance, the governor general invested considerable time in reviewing the agreements.  Hanna and the PLP administration (Cabinet and PM Christie) insisted that environmental guidelines and protocol be inserted into the licenses to protect the environment, even though the protocol was not required by the Petroleum Act.  I complied with the insertion because, as an environmentalist, my belief was that we as a company explore with the intention of preserving the environment for future generations.

Upon acceptance of the company’s revisions, the licenses were approved by Hanna, whose authority it was to grant government titles and licensing of Commonwealth lands.  The licenses were signed into effect in April 2007.  This process was not new to the governor general, as he had approved similar applications for Liberty Oil and Kerr McGee.

I ran about eight focus groups with Joan Albury of The Counsellors Ltd. throughout the major cities in The Bahamas, with a general cross section of the population participating.  The majority were in favor of progressing oil exploration after learning about the company and the safeguards it would follow, the potential for discovery of petroleum and the potential benefits to the people and the government.  So in essence, it was received very favorably and these fora were done after the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill in, I believe, either late 2010 or early 2011.

The landscape

The U.S. government has determined that the BP Macondo spill was by human error.  The oil zones (reservoirs, oil occurs in tiny spaces within rock layers much like water in an aquifer) in the Gulf of Mexico are under very high pressure because of geologic conditions related to burial of soft sand under the Mississippi delta.  In contrast, the reservoirs drilled to date in The Bahamas, south Florida and Cuba are normal unpressured layers because of the hard limestones.  Low pressure in these limestone reservoirs has been established from hundreds of wells drilled in the region.

The last well to be drilled in The Bahamas was in 1986 by Tenneco in the southernmost part of Great Bahama Bank, which was drilled in the shallow part of the bank, closer to Cuba than to Andros island.  Prior to that, four other wells were drilled between 1948 to 1972 in The Bahamas, and none of the wells suffered any mishap: two onshore wells, one on Andros and another on Long Island; and two “offshore” wells drilled in pristine aqua waters of the shallow bank, one just north of Bimini visible from the Great Isaac lighthouse, and another well was drilled in the center of Cay Sal Bank.

And all wells had positive shows of oil and or gas.  The areas were left pristine as before drilling and there was no reported impact on the environment.  A U.S. government report (USGS by Dr. Eugene Shinn) reported on the numerous wells drilled in the Florida Keys and that there was no impact on coral reef environments.

Drilling has been conducted safely and successfully in The Bahamas in the past.  Wells will be drilled on the Cuban side of the boarder, within 10 kilometers or closer to the international boundary with The Bahamas in the coming year.  Oil spill models that I commissioned and recently reported by the company show that if a spill would occur, which would not be a high pressure Macondo-type blowout, then the probability of the spill making landfall on Bahamian beaches is less than a tenth of a percent, nearly zero.

Let government regulations, public fora and the best interest of The Bahamas decide on the potential of the petroleum investment, not politics, rhetoric and ivory tower special interest groups.  I believe once the election is past, the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas owes it to its people to test the potential for oil pools in the south, adjacent to the boundary with Cuba.  Cuba will be testing its side of the border, shouldn’t The Bahamas at least hope that “it could be so lucky”?

• Dr. Paul Crevello is CEO of Discovery Petroleum.  He is also the former CEO of the Bahamas Petroleum Company.

May 11, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The peaceful election of May 7 ...and the quick and orderly selection of a new opposition leader ...demonstrate that the Bahamian democracy, despite our many problems as a country ...is in decent shape

The new opposition leader

thenassauguardian editorial

The 2012 general election was a moment of change.  It began the era of new political leaders who were not members of Sir Lynden Pindling’s Cabinet.

Hubert Ingraham lost the election.  So he went first.  Perry Christie’s time as a leader is too nearing an end.  He will be the last of Sir Lynden’s direct protégés to be prime minister.

Last night, the FNM elected its new leader in Parliament, Dr. Hubert Minnis, who will serve as the leader of the opposition.  Dr. Minnis is an obstetrician and gynecologist and a businessman.  He was first elected to the House of Assembly in 2007 for the Killarney constituency and was reelected to that seat on Monday.  Dr. Minnis is one of only three Free National Movement (FNM) members to win a seat in New Providence.

The new opposition leader has the reputation of being a hard worker as an MP and is liked and respected by FNMs, and quite a few supporters of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).  His hardest task will be convincing FNMs that the world did not come to an end on Monday.  And, it did not.

The FNM won about 42 percent of the vote.  That’s not bad.  If 200 votes per constituency here and there swung the other way, the FNM would be the government.

The FNM has to analyze why it lost.  It must do research, real scientific research and not “the boys” sitting in a restaurant talking, to determine what happened.  When that is known, the party can begin to craft a message.

Dr. Minnis came out swinging last night at FNM headquarters.  He said one of his first tasks as opposition leader is to investigate claims of victimization by the PLP.

“We're going to look at everything they do,” he said.

“I’ve already been informed that individuals, Bahamians...who have had contracts to build houses and do other things within this Bahamas, have already had their contracts removed.

“They’ve not been in office more than two days yet and they have already started victimizing Bahamians, yet they say Bahamians first.  So we will aggressively pursue that and other matters we’ve heard of.”

Dr. Minnis is doing what an opposition leader should do.  He is opposing and asking questions regarding the conduct of the government.  If other FNMs rise from the bed of sorrow and assist the new opposition leader, the party may bounce back quicker than expected.

The FNM will have a leadership contest at the end of this month.  At this stage and with this appointment by the party, Dr. Minnis is the frontrunner to replace Ingraham who has already tendered his resignation, which will take effect at the convention.

The peaceful election of May 7 and the quick and orderly selection of a new opposition leader demonstrate that the Bahamian democracy, despite our many problems as a country, is in decent shape.

May 10, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International