Dame Joan Sawyer concerns about the government statements on the general election and Baha Mar

Dear Editor,

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood two recent stories which appeared in your respective newspapers.

The first is that the prime minister is reported to have said that he was not going to call the general election “any time soon”. I am not sure on what that statement was based, because article 66(3) of the constitution is quite specific about the duration of any Parliament following a general election. That paragraph reads: “(3) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) of this article, Parliament, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date of its first sitting after any dissolution and shall then stand dissolved.”

If my memory is correct, I think the present Parliament first sat on May 23, 2012. That would mean that unless the prime minister advises the governor general to dissolve Parliament before that date, the present Parliament will “stand dissolved” on May 23, 2017, with the result that there would be no legitimate government to advise the governor general and there would not be a Senate because, according to article 43(1)(a), each Senate seat “becomes vacant upon the next dissolution of Parliament after he has been appointed”.

In such an event, it is doubtful that even the powers which the constitution gives to the Cabinet under articles 29, 66(4) and (5), in a situation where war or a state of emergency has been declared, can be exercised at all or by whom, since in these circumstances there would not be a declared state of emergency or war.

I am aware that in 1987 the Parliament did not actually hold its first sitting following the general election that year until some three months later, and that it was for that reason that the date of the general election for 1992 was some three months after five years would have expired from the holding of the 1987 general election. Clearly that is not the situation now.

Article 66(4), which is referred to in article 66(3), would only apply if The Bahamas is at war or under a declared state of emergency under article 29; as far as I am aware there has been no declaration that The Bahamas is at war or that a state of emergency exists, so that could not be the basis for extending the life of the present Parliament.

I am also aware that article 67(1) provides that: “(67) – (1) After every dissolution of Parliament the governor­ general shall issue writs for a general election of members of the House of Assembly returnable within ninety days from that dissolution.”

That provision seems to contemplate a situation where the Parliament is dissolved well before its session is due to end and the 90 days is the outside limit for the writs of election to be issued and returned. After all, in the very words of that paragraph, the governor general could only issue writs after Parliament is dissolved. In addition, regard will have to be taken of section 32 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Ch. 7), as well as the fact that the present budget will expire on June 30, 2017; and one cannot help but wonder how they will then deal with the preparation, presentation and passage of the necessary bills for the budget for the upcoming fiscal year which starts on July 1.

Section 32 of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides for writs of election to issue and to be returnable within not less than 21 days nor more than 30 days – both of those time frames are within the 90 days contemplated by article 67 (1) of the constitution. The time line is now quite short unless it is intended to ignore the above mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions.

The second issue that arises from the stories in the newspapers is that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of some members of the general public about whether in truth, and in fact, Baha Mar has been sold and to whom. Is it in fact true that the assets of Baha Mar have in fact become the property of the Export-Import Bank of China by virtue of a foreclosure under a debenture to that entity? If so, clearly the debenture should have been registered in the Registry of Records, which would then make it open to inspection by members of the public.

There is also confusion as to how the judgement in a publicly heard civil case (the Baha Mar compulsory liquidation case) could be so “sealed” that no one, other than perhaps the learned justice who heard it, as well as the learned attorney general (whose daughters and husband have business interests housed in the building) and maybe the lawyers for other parties to the case would be aware of what was in fact decided.

It must be remembered that article 20 paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) of the constitution apply to that case as they do to all other civil cases heard in the Supreme Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction of The Bahamas. Those paragraphs read: “(8) Any court or other adjudicating authority prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other adjudicating authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

“(9) All proceedings instituted in any court for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation, including the announcement of the decision of the court, shall be held in public.

“(10) Nothing in paragraph (9) of this article shall prevent the court from excluding from the proceedings persons other than the parties thereto and their legal representatives to such extent as the court –

“(a) may be empowered by law so to do and may consider necessary or expedient in circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice, or in interlocutory proceedings or in the interests of public morality, the welfare of persons under the age of eighteen years or the protection of the private lives of persons concerned in the proceedings;

“(b) may be empowered or required by law to do so in the interests of defense, public safety or public order; or

“(c) may be empowered or required to do so by the rules of court and practice existing immediately before 10 July 1973 or by any law made subsequently to the extent that it makes provision substantially to the same effect as provision contained in any such rules.”

Clearly there was no matter of defense or public safety or public order to cause the decision not to be made public. On the other hand, it may be argued that because Crown land and money from the Consolidated Fund was used to pay employees of Baha Mar (money that was said to be owed to China Construction company for the construction of the new road from the airport) that the interests of justice required the decision and the reasons for it to be made public, especially when it appears to reasonable persons that there may have been a conflict of interest on the part of the government’s main adviser, the learned attorney general, who has subsequently reported that there was a sale to a Hong Kong entity and then that the sale is not complete.

These were also not interlocutory proceedings nor were they proceedings concerning the welfare of persons under the age of 18 years, nor for the protection of the private lives of persons concerned in the proceedings.

Furthermore, in The Nassau Guardian of Monday, January 30, 2017, pages A25 and A27, there were notices of voluntary winding up by 15 companies with the words “Baha Mar” in their names. The notices were apparently issued by Edmund L. Rahming. If those 15 companies are subsidiaries of Baha Mar, it raises serious questions about the whole saga of the winding-up proceedings of Baha Mar because voluntary liquidation is normally only appropriate where the company is solvent, and the compulsory winding up of Baha Mar would only be justified if that company was insolvent. Are we to accept that those 15 subsidiaries are solvent while the parent company (if it is the parent company) is insolvent?

It was also reported that the prime minister has said that he has instructed the attorney general to make public the contents of the judgment of the court in the Baha Mar case. There are two issues which arise from that. Firstly, if the attorney general, as attorney general, can say when a judgment by a justice of the Supreme Court is to be made public, that raises the very thorny question as to whether the attorney general is controlling the courts.

Secondly, it raises the question as to whether the prime minister, through the agency of the attorney general, is controlling the courts.

Neither of those possibilities would be consistent with the constitutional requirement for the courts to be “independent and impartial”.

I sincerely hope and pray that the information in the newspapers to which I have referred above is not quite correct, for if it is, then the concept of the rule of law would be otiose in The Bahamas.

 

– Joan A. Sawyer

Source - The Nassau Guardian

...does the national budget for fiscal year 2012/13 address the important promises that were made during the recently completed general election campaign?

The Budget: Part I

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

On Wednesday past, May 30, the prime minister and minister of finance presented his much-anticipated first budget of the new administration that was elected only two weeks ago.  This week, we would like to Consider This… does the national budget for fiscal year 2012/13 address the important promises that were made during the recently completed general election campaign?

The short answer is that it begins to do so.  However, the extent to which it does is severely constrained by the distressing state of public finances that the Christie administration inherited from the former administration.  In addition, there is a time constraint challenge that significantly factors into what was contained in Prime Minister Christie’s recent Budget Communication.

For the past few terms, when general elections were held in early May of 2002, 2007 and 2012, the usual mid-May budgetary process has been punctuated by a change of government which imposed severe restrictions on the victor because of the very narrow time line between the elections and the required presentation of the national budget.  Therefore, in the absence of a predetermined fixed election date, successive governments should make a deliberate effort to avoid holding general elections in May because of the constraints that this event places on the implementation of a national budget designed to address the victor’s national agenda.  More about that at another time.

The state of public finances

It is now becoming increasingly evident that the former FNM administration that has always claimed to be a government of accountability and transparency has been neither. An early indication of this was first observed in the Ingraham Administration’s deliberate negligence to submit its customary and much anticipated mid-year budget report earlier this year.  It can be reasonably surmised that the former prime minister and minister of finance consciously decided to forego this practice in 2012, which he himself introduced with much fanfare and consistent conformity, for purely political reasons.

The former prime minister and his Cabinet clearly realized that if they honestly reported the state of public finances at mid-year, their deplorable financial performance would have been received with shock and awe by the Bahamian citizenry.  In the run up to elections, an honest report would likely have brought about an even more devastating outcome at the polls, and therefore, presumably, the FNM government took a conscious decision to withhold such reporting from the public, hoping that the public would place the lack of a report in the “no news is good news” category.

Another example of the FNM government’s willful refusal to report on the true state of public finances pertained to the New Providence road works, which the Public Accounts Committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Dr. Bernard Nottage, revealed had incurred a budget overrun of nearly $100 million.

A third instance of the FNM government’s lack of accountability regarding public finances was exposed in the current prime minister’s communication last week when the latter reported the horrendously high and historically unprecedented total deficit for 2011/2012 which rose to a record level of $570 million versus an approved total deficit of $314 million, an increase of $256 million or 82 percent more than was originally anticipated.  In line with the International Monetary Fund Government Finance Statistics (GFS) concept, the GFS deficit, which is the total deficit less debt redemption, for 2011/12 is projected to result in $504 million or 6.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This is double the 3.0 percent that was presented by Mr. Ingraham as the forecast in last year’s Budget Communication.

Finally, the FNM government’s legacy to the national debt is equally disappointing and extraordinarily dismaying.  The national debt increased from $3 billion to $4.3 billion during its term in office from 2007 to 2012, an increase of 40 percent in five years.  This represents an historically high debt to GDP ratio of 56 percent.  Because of this inherited unparalleled GFS budget deficit of $504 million for 2012, the Christie administration will have to borrow an additional $504 million in order to pay off the financial excesses of the Ingraham administration.

The national debt will therefore increase to $4.8 billion by the end of the next fiscal year. But it gets worse. Again, because of the excessive commitments and spending of the Ingraham administration, all things being equal, and barring any unforeseen catastrophic developments over the next two years, given a projected record GFS deficit of $550 million for fiscal year 2013/14, is anticipated that the national debt will increase to well over $5.4 billion by 2014. This will represent a disastrously high debt to GDP ratio in excess of 60 percent.

All these unmatched and unequalled negative performance measures that the government inherited were incurred by an FNM government that frequently and triumphantly trumpeted its commitment to good governance, fiscal prudence, sound financial management, accountability and transparency in public finances.

It is fair to say that so-called good governance, fiscal prudence, sound financial management, accountability and transparency in public finances notwithstanding, Mr. Ingraham and his FNM Government have unquestionably left Mr. Christie and his government in a financial pickle.

Promises to keep

In spite of the alarming news, the Christie administration is still very determined to implement its agenda as articulated in its 100 day promises, the Charter for Governance, the Speech from the Throne and the Budget Communication.  While it will be enormously constrained by the fiscal realities that it has inherited, the new government has set about delivering on the social contract that serves as a basis of the mandate it was given on May 7.

It will be important for the new government to regularly give the Bahamian people an open and candid account of its stewardship over the next five years if it hopes to break the recent trend of one-term governments.

Conclusion

Next week, we will examine how the new administration’s budgetary provisions plan to remain true to its pledges to an impatient and hurting populace whose expectations for relief and renewal are extremely high and to what extent the national budget for 2012/13 will seek to meet those high expectations.

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

Jun 04, 2012

thenassauguardian

The Budget: Part II

Caribbean Blog International

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

Campaign financing: A better way

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

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

 

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

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

Using the public purse

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

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

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

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

Campaign contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign finance reform

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

 

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

Apr 23, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Haitian Ambassador to The Bahamas Antonio Rodrigue says Haiti's president Michel Martelly did not intend to interfere in Bahamian politics when he told Haitian-Bahamians to identify "who is on their side" in the upcoming general election ...and band together accordingly with the political party that they feel would best protect their interests

Haiti denies FNM 'vote ploy'


By DANA SMITH
dsmith@tribunemedia.net


HAITI'S president Michel Martelly did not intend to interfere in Bahamian politics when he told Haitian-Bahamians to identify "who is on their side" in the upcoming general elections, Haitian Ambassador Antonio Rodrigue said.

The ambassador spoke yesterday as political rivals of the FNM expressed concern over Mr Martelly's comments - which they claimed were the result of a "political ploy" by the governing party.

On Wednesday, Mr Martelly advised Bahamians of Haitian descent to band together and lobby for a political party they feel would best protect their interests.

"I told them to organise themselves and identify in this upcoming elections who is on their side," he said.

"By being determinate in the elections they may have people taking care of them, this is the democratic way."

Mr Rodrigue claimed the president was misunderstood and stressed he was not trying to be political.

"I think people are taking it out of context and people here try to put it as a political effort.

"No, he wants to tell them - and this is something I think is normal - look out for your interests, look for who is helping you, who has your interests.

"He didn't mention any person, any group, anything in particular," Mr Rodrigue said.

"It was not his intention to get into the politics of the Bahamas. That's not his intention and I think it's a misunderstanding or maybe people try to twist what he said just for political reasons, but the president respects the choice or the politics of each country. Never would it be his intention to get involved in those things."

As for accusations that Mr Martelly's statements were an endorsement of the FNM, Mr Rodrigue said the president's visit had "nothing to do" with the FNM or any other party, and pointed out the president visited with both the FNM and PLP leaders.

"It was not his intention saying that to endorse anyone in this election," he emphasised.
Mr Rodrigue explained the president only meant Haitians should organise among themselves and not necessarily in support of a particular party.

"He didn't talk about any party, he said Haitians have to organise themselves. It's something I think is very important because Haitians here are kind of isolated so when they put themselves together they can work better," he said.

Mr Rodrigue called it "unfortunate" that the president's comments were "twisted."

An official statement released by the Haitian Embassy last night said: "President Martelly's sole purpose during his stay in the Bahamas was to seek opportunities to improve the lives of Haitians, so they don't have to migrate to other countries.

"At any moment, President Martelly did not intend to interfere in any way in the internal politics of the Bahamas."

February 10, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...are there any ‘sexy’ or especially thought-provoking campaigns that should be more closely watched in the upcoming general election?

Sexy races to watch pt. 1

Consider this


By Philip C. Galanis

The three major political parties have named their entire rosters of 38 candidates for the upcoming general election, which, from all present indications, seems destined for the middle of April to early May.   That is, of course, unless the prime minister decides to irreverently ignore the Lenten season which runs from February 22 to April 8, 2012, something he did in 1997 when general elections were held on March 14.  On that occasion, the FNM won 34 seats to the PLP’s six, establishing the precedent to disregard the Lenten season for political expediency, with no disadvantage to the FNM.

This week we would like to Consider This…given the current compilation of candidates, are there any ‘sexy’ or especially thought-provoking campaigns that should be more closely watched in the upcoming skirmish?  We can think of several and suggest that those worth watching closely are Bamboo Town, Montagu, Fort Charlotte, Long Island, The Exumas and Ragged Island and both Andros seats.

Bamboo Town

Bamboo Town is perhaps the sexiest of all races and is shaping up to be perhaps the most interesting race to watch.  Absolutely none of the candidates now drafted will actually represent the party to which they initially belonged.  They are all transplants.  Branville McCartney, the leader of the newly-formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA) not long ago was a FNM minister.  The Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) standard bearer, Renward Wells, until recently, was the leader of the National Development Party (NDP) before joining and being nominated by the PLP.  Before recently joining the FNM, its candidate, Cassius Stuart, was a founding member and the leader of the Bahamas Democratic Movement which was formed in 1998.  Craig Butler, the independent candidate, was an officer of the PLP until recently being denied a nomination by his former party.  So, each of these candidates began his political career wearing other colors.

The person with the most to lose is Branville McCartney, because, as leader of the DNA, if he loses, by convention of the Westminster parliamentary system which we follow, he should resign as that party’s leader.  That scenario would be even more interesting if some of his fellow candidates win their seats and he does not.  Supposedly, the successful candidates, if any, would have to elect a new leader from those who are successful.  In this particular battle, McCartney must have calculated that his former FNM votes could quite likely be cannibalized by the FNM.

There are several important considerations here.  First, in the 2007 election, the PLP did not contest Bamboo Town.  In that election, as presently constituted, the FNM polled 1,261 votes as opposed to independent candidate Tennyson Wells’ 999 votes.  It is reasonable to assume that most of those were cast by PLP supporters who did not have a ‘horse’ in the race.  Secondly, in its present incarnation, Bamboo Town has six polling divisions that were previously in the Kennedy constituency.  In 2007, in those polling divisions, the PLP received 835 votes against the FNM’s 730.  Hence, again as presently constituted, the combined PLP/independent votes would have totaled 1,834 compared to the FNM’s 1,991.

The real test here will be how many of Bran’s FNM voters last time will support him this time around, and will Cassius be able to attract sufficient support to win or will he split the FNM vote which will then work to Renward’s advantage?  And, finally, how well will Craig Butler fare?  Bamboo Town will be the ‘mother of all races’ to watch in 2012.

Montagu

Montagu is also garnering intense interest.  This seat has always been represented by the FNM standard bearer.  The current candidates are Ben Albury (DNA), Richard Lightbourne (FNM), and Frank Smith (PLP).  The most amazing development in this constituency is that, while it is called Montagu, there have been significant changes.  Montagu is now comprised of 12 polling divisions from St. Thomas More, where last time the FNM and PLP polled 1,359 and 1,508 votes, respectively; five polling divisions from Montagu, where the FNM and PLP polled 1,086 and 330 votes, respectively; and one polling division from Marathon where the FNM and PLP polled 81 and 145 votes, respectively.  Based on the total votes cast in 2007, the FNM and PLP polled 2,526 and 1,983 votes, respectively, and assuming that all things remain equal, the FNM would appear to have a decided advantage by 543 votes.

However, Frank Smith has great personal appeal with an effective ground campaign and superlative ‘street smarts’, while Richard Lightbourne is generally perceived to be a lackluster candidate.  The spoiler factor here will be important because Ben Albury is also a very attractive candidate and will likely cannibalize FNM votes.  Despite the apparent FNM advantage here, this contest will have more to do with personal appeal and voter connectivity than brand loyalty.  This will be a fascinating race to follow.

Fort Charlotte

Fort Charlotte will be another very interesting race.  The veteran Zhivargo Laing (FNM), and newcomers Dr. Andre Rollins (PLP) and Mark Humes, chairman of the DNA, will contest that seat, which is presently represented by Alfred Sears (PLP).  This constituency is also now a composite of most of the polling divisions of Fort Charlotte (nine polling divisions or parts thereof), two polling divisions from Killarney and a part of Killarney polling division number two.  Based on the 2007 election results, as presently constituted, last time the FNM and PLP polled 1,637 and 1,700 votes, respectively.  These figures do not include the parts of the polling divisions that have been changed.

While this race should be won by the PLP it is too close to call particularly given the campaign experience of the FNM’s veteran candidate, albeit he was rejected in Fort Charlotte in 2002, versus the rookie factor of the PLP and DNA candidates.  Furthermore, it can be reasonably assumed that regardless of the reason for Zhivargo’s move from Marco City in Freeport to Fort Charlotte, Ingraham has made a calculated wager that he would like to ensure a victory for his “erstwhile son” – a victory that was questionable in Marco City.

Conclusion

The prime minister realizes that if he is to form the next government, he has to keep Bamboo Town and Montagu in the FNM win column and would like to increase his number by adding Fort Charlotte, particularly because he believes that he will lose ground in Grand Bahama given his government’s dismal performance there and that island’s anemic economic profile during the last five years.

Next week, we will review the prospects for the ‘sexy’ and significant races on Andros, on which the prime minister has publically declared he has set his sights, Long Island, and The Exumas and Ragged Island.

Jan 30, 2012

thenassauguardian

Sexy races to watch pt.2

Caribbean Blog International

There seem to be more questions than answers regarding the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party... questions that will certainly be answered on General Election Day

The Democratic National Alliance

By Philip C. Galanis

The mission of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is to ensure that the needs and aspirations of Bahamian people – to be owners with the government in the political, cultural, and economic development of the nation – are met.

DNA mission statement

Since its launch in May, 2011 the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), the newest political party on the Bahamian landscape, has gained considerable traction with the Bahamian public, especially those who are clamoring for something different in our body politic.  The pervasive pronouncement is that Bahamians are tired of the behemoth Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), or at least of the leaders of those two goliath political machines.  So far, the DNA has named 26 candidates to contest next year's general election and promises to field a full slate of candidates, which is unprecedented for such a new political party.  Therefore this week we would like to Consider This... Does the DNA have staying power?  Can it form the next government and what kind of governance could we expect from this fledging political party?

Historically, third parties have not fared well in Bahamian politics.  The last endeavor of an organized third party, the Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR), met the fateful disaster of not having any of its candidates poll sufficient votes to enjoy a refund of their deposits.  Therefore, what makes the upcoming contest any different?  Have Bahamian voters sufficiently matured to embrace a third alternative?

Some political pundits and pollsters have suggested that Branville McCartney, the DNA's self-appointed leader, is the most popular politician in Bahamian politics today and that his magnetic mass appeal stems from his courage in taking on his former political mentor, the Rt. Hon. Hubert Ingraham, much as the latter took on his political mentor, the Rt. Hon. Sir Lynden Pindling in 1992.  The only thing that Bahamians love more than a winner is a brash, brazen leader who is prepared to buck the established order.  Will McCartney and his DNA "green team" have what is required to translate those ingredients into a winning team?  And if the DNA cannot win an outright plurality, will they be spoilers, winning enough seats to form a coalition government?

Why now?

Many Bahamians have repeatedly asserted that while Ingraham and Christie are tried and tested, there is a perception that they are tired, with few new ideas, have exceeded their relevance on the political stage and that now is the time for them to exit.  Furthermore, both of those leaders are now in their sixties, and many developed and developing democracies are trending toward leaders in their forties and fifties, including the recent change in Jamaica.

That the DNA has gained any traction at all seems to support the proposition that Bahamians are now ready for a tectonic shift in the established order.  Their appeal could be as much grounded in their freshness and youth as in a yearning for a generational shift, precipitated by our changing demographics.  The DNA seems to be gaining considerable appeal among young voters who increasingly constitute a very large segment of the voting populace.   Furthermore, the DNA has positioned itself as a party of the middle class, compared to the PLP and the FNM who are seen to represent grassroots and elitist voters, respectively.

The DNA's challenges

The most pronounced challenge which the DNA has to overcome is its inexperience.  With the exception of its leader, none of the DNA candidates have any experience in governance.  Those who say that Lynden Pindling and his team did not have any experience in government when he first became premier in 1967 are missing a very essential point.  While it is true that Pindling and his team were inexperienced in actual governance, they were certainly experienced in parliamentary democracy, with many years experience in Parliament before attaining majority rule.  This is an extremely important difference and one that should not escape or be easily dismissed by the green team.

The DNA's first test will be a demonstrable ability to construct a national election machine to stage a national campaign.  If it can do that, the most essential question which McCartney has to address is whether the Bahamian people are prepared to hand over the government to such an inexperienced group of newcomers.   And if the DNA were to win, it will take a very long time for a DNA government to learn the system of governance along with the workings of the deeply entrenched and all-powerful public service, as well as to obtain a basic understanding of how to run a country.  The DNA's first test as government will be the preparation and defense of a national budget, no mean feat for even a seasoned political organization.   And, no matter how brilliant the ideas and vision of the DNA, in our present precarious circumstances, we must ask if our country can afford the time it will take these political newcomers to learn the ins and outs of how to run the country.

Another important consideration is that most of the DNA's announced candidates are unknown on the national scene.  What does the electorate really know about its candidates and their backgrounds?  What do they stand for and have they been successful in their various professional or occupational endeavors?

In addition, the DNA has not yet clearly articulated its platform.  What differentiates the DNA from the other mainstream parties?  We are still not certain what the party stands for and how it will implement its agenda.  What skills do they have in drafting the legislation that it will have to table in Parliament in order to implement its programs and policies?    Who will comprise the cabinet and what experience will such persons bring to their various portfolios?  And is the DNA prepared to make the many appointments to boards, commissions and the foreign service?  These are the essential decisions that will have to be taken almost immediately if the DNA is transformed from a political party to a government.   These are the issues that members of the electorate will have to consider when casting their ballots on Election Day.

Conclusion

We believe that the next general election will be keenly contested, fiercely fought and extremely exciting.  As we saw in the Elizabeth by-election, many races will be cliffhangers and every single vote will be important.

One thing is certain.  There seem to be more questions than answers regarding the DNA, questions that will certainly be answered on Election Day.

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

Nov 07, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Christian People Movement has joined forces with the Bahamas Constitution Party (BCP)

BCP to take part in general election

By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
cnixon@tribunemedia.net



The Bahamas Constitution Party announced that it will be participating in the next general election.

Describing itself as a "social and fiscal conservative party" the BCP issued a statement yesterday revealing that the party will be fielding 39 candidates in the upcoming elections.

It said: "We are planning to be ready to 'Govern on Day One' having spend the past 12-13 years in research, development and planning".

The BCP was officially launched in 1999, making its first appearance in the 2002 elections.

The Christian People Movement has also joined forces with the BCP "adding both value numbers to our agenda and vision for the Commonwealth of the Bahamas" said the statement.

The party's main goals include constitutional reform, urban renewal and youth programmes, implementation of new immigration policies, improved education, economic diversification and crime reduction.

The BCP plans to release their "Mandate 2012- Hope for Bahamaland" during an upcoming summer convention along with planned public appearances, town meetings and mini rallies to raise awareness and support for the party.

The BCP invites the public to view their "Hope for Bahamaland" plan at www.bahamasyouthrenewal.com.

April 30, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Exactly what do we know about Mr. Branville McCartney so far?

The enigma known as Branville McCartney

By Rick Lowe


Mr. McCartney recently resigned from the government, (as he should have), remaining in Parliament as an independent MP, and rumour has it he will start a new political party to contest the next general election.

Upon hearing this, one of my nephews e-mailed from Abaco to say how exciting this was and felt this new party would win if they could field some good candidates.

My response, after consulting my political crystal ball, was that he might not even win the Constituency he currently represents, (Bamboo Town) again, much less the government based on what we know about him and his policies and how he proposes to implement them to date.

Exactly what do we know about Mr. McCartney so far?

1. He thinks illegal Haitians should be repatriated.
2. He thinks Bahamians should be able to succeed.
3. He is opposed to Cable & Wireless buying BTC.

Now what do we find when we look at what the FNM and PLP think about these things?

Believe it or not, Mr. McCartney, or "Bran" as he is affectionately known, agrees with both the major political parties on the first two points, and agrees with the PLP on the third, since they changed their position on privatisation that is. So what's he got that the other two parties don't have?  Problem is we don't know yet.

Until Mr. McCartney releases a position paper on major issues and how he will "plan or fix" things so Bahamians can get to know him, he stands for nothing original at this point. In fact he just might be so nationalistic that he sets the country back even further than the "devils" we know.

This quote from Nobel Laureate and economist, F.A. Hayek from his masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, seems appropriate:

"The effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go; with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all."

In the mean time it will be fun watching the political posturing until his cards are played for all to see, because at this point Mr. McCartney is little more than an enigma.

Monday, March 28, 2011

weblogbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

2012 General Election Predictions (Part 2) - Bahamas

Election predictions - part 2
By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com




THE odds are stacked against Zhivargo Laing in Marco City in the next general election.

Frankly, the race in this constituency appears to be between two unpopular candidates. Mr Laing, who may yet again have to move to another constituency (similar to the constant relocation of former PLP MP Paul Adderley) is said to have worn-out his welcome in his constituency. Constituents have complained that Mr Laing is out of touch with public sentiment and have objected to being seen or addressed in a patronizing, condescending manner by any politician. Mr Laing's constituents have complained about an air of perceived arrogance and expressed an interest in having Mr Laing spend more time actually listening (genuinely) to their concerns. The Marco City MP is a banana peel away from slipping into the political abyss. PLP nominee Greg Moss (lawyer) is likely to defeat him.

Brensil Rolle, the Garden Hills MP, will likely defeat Dr Kendal Major. Mr Rolle is apparently quite popular on the ground and considering the population shifts in the constituency--due to the recent construction and sale of houses in newly constructed housing subdivisions--he may have the advantage in an electoral showdown.

Vincent Peet, the MP for North Andros has been relatively quiet of late. Mr Peet is likely to retain his seat.

Melanie Griffin will politically sucker punch FNM challenger Joshua Sears. I am told that the boundary cuts will favour Sears, extending Yamacraw further eastward into large chunks of Brent Symonette's St Annes' constituency. However, because there are also plans afoot to relocate Phenton Neymour to the Exuma constituency, Mr Sears' name has been bandied about as a likely replacement for Mr Neymour in South Beach.

Lacklustre

If Phenton Neymour contests the South Beach seat, his teeth "will be on edge" having tested the sour grapes of what's said to be an impending defeat. Mr Neymour lacks the political horsepower to recapture the seat, as many residents express displeasure with his lackluster representation.

However, if Mr Neymour runs in Exuma, he could possibly edge out incumbent PLP MP Anthony Moss. Mr Moss is said to be unpopular in the Exuma Cays and has rendered a performance that is purportedly the reason for much voter discontent. Black Point residents--the second largest polling division--claim to have not seen Mr Moss since the last general election. Noticeably, Mr Neymour has made frequent trips into the Exuma constituency of late. Even more, of late Mr Neymour has also dropped the moniker he used to describe his constituents in Parliament--"the kings and queens of South Beach"--giving one the impression that perhaps the underlying notion now is that the Royal family of South Beach are preparing to dismiss their servant.

That said, Neymour's entrance into the Exuma race will leave the constituency too close to call--for now.

Notably, if Joshua Sears contests the South Beach seat as the standard bearer for the FNM, he has a more favourable chance of defeating Nurses Union president Cleola Hamilton (PLP), who has already been described by some residents as "charmless."

The Fox Hill seat could go either way. I'm told that the boundary cuts will now incorporate a polling division--out of Montagu and near to Step Street--in hopes of assisting challenger Dr Jacintha Higgs (a lady who wears the most enrapturing outfits) in gaining a foothold on the constituency and rendering current MP Fred Mitchell a seatless wonder. By all accounts, Mr Mitchell has been a visible, working MP, thereby leaving his opponent with a long, tough journey to the polls. My electoral crystal ball could not yet reveal a likely winner in this contest.

Kenyatta Gibson, the bombastic-talking MP for Kennedy, is abandoning the constituency and running as the FNM's candidate in South Eleuthera. Although incumbent MP Oswald Ingraham is in his 70s, he could still vie for the seat or be replaced by one of eight applicants for the PLP nomination--a list that I am told includes local government chief councilor Hank Johnson.

Although Mr Gibson and his family purportedly have roots in the constituency, it is likely that he will be sent deeper into political oblivion following the next election. It appears that Mr Gibson walked the Parliamentary floor and will now be walking out of Parliament altogether!

Tommy Turnquest holds a slight edge over Arnold Forbes in the race for Mount Moriah. Although the Bahamas remains in a state of national "un-security", Mr Forbes' campaign may become anemic and lose traction due to reported business-related issues emanating from Canada.

Comeback

Bain and Grants Town is likely to remain in the PLP column, as Dr Bernard Nottage is expected to take out whoever the FNM nominee will be. At this juncture, party insiders inform me that the former area MP Gregory Williams is vying for the nomination in an attempt to make a political comeback; also reportedly seeking the nod is former candidate David Jordine and Rev CB Moss, who is said to be in talks with the FNM. Of course, Bain and Grants Town is a traditionally PLP seat.

PLP leader Perry Christie will most certainly humiliate his challenger in the Farm Road constituency.

The race for the Marathon constituency is setting up to be a slugfest. Of late, newcomer Jerome Fitzgerald has amped up his courtship of constituents by purchasing alarm systems and having them installed in their homes. Whilst incumbent Dr Earl Deveaux certainly has the upper hand, having spoken to constituents and political insiders from both of the major parties, I've concluded that the Marathon brawl is too close to call at this time.

The contest for North Eleuthera constituency--given the decision of House Speaker Alvin Smith not to stand for re-election--should be an exciting race to watch. Purported FNM candidate Theo Neilly--an airport manager and local government chief councilor--is slated to run against Spanish Wells native and fellow local government councilor Clay Sweeting. However, for the FNM, lawyer Richard Lightbourne's name has also been mentioned as a possible nominee. Here again, it's too far out to call this race, particularly since--at least on the national scene--both candidates are political neophytes. However, I am told that the contest for North Eleuthera is expected to be a costly affair, with lots of money changing hands.

The voters of Golden Isles will rebuke MP Charles Maynard in a runoff where challenger Michael Halkitis is expected to beat the incumbent MP like a piñata. A walloping could leave Mr Maynard having fits of post-election hysteria and, like the movie Sleepless in Seattle, he'll likely be Sleepless in Golden Isles.

During his term in office, Mr Maynard has struck me as a representative/minister who--unlike the movie--politically has no true grit.

With Kenyatta Gibson speedily running away to Eleuthera, the Kennedy seat will easily remain a PLP stronghold with newcomer Dion Smith trouncing all challengers.

PLP Deputy Leader and MP for Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador Philip "Brave" Davis will put a spanking on FNM challenger George Wilson. In the past, Mr Wilson unsuccessfully ran as an independent candidate in the same constituency.

There is also another angle that must be explored relative to Mr Davis' political future as he has been speculated as having an interest in relocating to the St Cecilia seat. PLP insiders inform me that if Mr Davis runs in St Cecilia, the party is likely to send former Police Commissioner BK Bonamy to vie for the Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador seat.

There is chatter that Verna Grant, FNM MP for Eight Mile Rock, is facing some serious opposition. Purportedly, Ms Grant is attempting to retain her nomination as former Senator Kay Forbes is said to be interested in displacing Ms Grant and running for the FNM in that seat. In what some say will be a tumultuous election season for her, Ms Grant is also expected to face vigorous challenges from potential PLP nominees such as Sandra Edgecombe (former principal at Eight Mile Rock High), Caleb Outten or a yet unnamed opponent. This time around, it appears that the polls could go either way.

High Rock MP Kenneth Russell (FNM) will rout the still unnamed PLP challenger in this largely FNM borough.

Lucaya MP Neko Grant will torpedo the electoral hopes of supposed PLP nominee Dr Lea Percentie.

The Pineridge seat is being contested by two five-star candidates. It is unfortunate that one of these men will have to politically cancel out the other.

Current MP Kwasi Thompson has been an outstanding representative, whilst challenger PLP Senator Dr Michael Darville--who has a medical practice in the constituency--also earned much praise from residents.

Frankly, the PLP should have nominated Dr Darville in the Marco City constituency, as he is not overwhelmingly favoured to beat Mr Thompson as opposed to the outright favourable rating in a race against Zhivargo Laing. That said, Dr Darville is a formidable candidate and, whilst Mr Thompson holds a slight edge at this time, the quality of the candidates vying for the voters support in this race could cause the pendulum to swing either way. This race will certainly be a nail biter, i.e. if Dr Darville is not transplanted to contest the Marco City seat.

PLP incumbent Frank Smith will face-off against likely FNM challenger Linda Treco in the St Thomas More constituency. By all accounts, Mr Smith has earned the ire of the Prime Minister, so it is expected that the full weight of the FNM's electoral machinery will be coming down upon him.

Reliable sources inform me that upcoming boundary cuts will place a portion of St Thomas More in Loretta Butler-Turner's Montagu constituency, arguing that because she won by more than 1000 votes in the last election, she can likely absorb some votes against her and still preserve a comfortable margin in another victorious run. Apparently, a portion of Fox Hill will likewise be absorbed into Brent Symonette's St Anne's constituency. I'm also told that Paradise Island will become a part of the new St Thomas More constituency.

Creditable

Pinewood, a PLP foothold, could once again return to the party's win column. Frankly, MP Byron Woodside has done a creditable job in the constituency. However, a loss may, among other factors, be due to changes within the voting block and the luck of the political draw as the constituency has had an extensive love affair with the PLP. The race for Pinewood will no doubt be close and quite competitive.

According to sources, the PLP intend to run attorney Damian Gomez in Pinewood.

Flip a coin and, quite similarly, the Elizabeth constituency can go either way although incumbent Ryan Pinder (PLP) is favoured--at this juncture--to retain his seat. That said, I've been clued-up by FNM insiders of the likely mapping out of a favourable boundary cut for challenger Dr Duane Sands--a cut which is set to incorporate "more FNM polling divisions" and cut-out a part of Elizabeth Estates.

Edison Key will retain his South Abaco seat.

Prime Minister and FNM leader Hubert Ingraham will crush all challengers--whether that is Ky Mills and/or Jackson McIntosh--in the race for the North Abaco seat. Frankly, the electoral hopes of Mr Ingraham's challengers are comparable to running in quick sand--struggling and sinking fast!

As we enter another general election season, Bahamians must begin to demand true and visionary leadership within their constituencies and on the national front.

The upcoming general election will certainly--as is seen every five years--be a political circus. Indeed, this will be a helluva election season, which will leave--upon its conclusion--more than a handful of sitting MPs and electoral hopefuls reaching for a crying towel.

March 19, 2011

2012 General Election Predictions (Part 1) - Bahamas

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has been condemned by one of his own... Branville McCartney

FNM blasts ‘attack on PM’
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com


PLP says PM Ingraham was condemned by one of his own


Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney’s assertion that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham lacks compassion was described yesterday by Free National Movement (FNM)Chairman Carl Bethel as an attack and “political posturing.”

“There is no question that such an attack upon the prime minister is totally without any foundation and must be viewed as merely the manifestation of a personal agenda,” said Bethel in a statement.

Bethel was responding to comments made by McCartney while he was a guest Tuesday on the Star 106.5 FM radio talk show ‘Jeffrey’ with host Jeffrey Lloyd.

At the time McCartney predicted that the FNM would be challenged at the next general election, in part because of Ingraham’s lack of compassion toward the Bahamian people.

“At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges,” said McCartney. “We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people,” he said.

When pressed by Lloyd, McCartney added: “The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”

Bethel said McCartney’s assessment was incorrect.

“Indeed, compassion is a virtue best expressed by actions, not words; and the prime minister throughout his political career has always shown great compassion for others,” he said.

“His policy initiatives, infrastructural improvements, stimulus packages, assistance with electricity bills, social spending, unemployment insurance and educational innovations in these tough times all speak louder than words of the prime minister’s compassion.”

Bethel said many people in the FNM were surprised at McCartney’s comments, as McCartney has always had the right to express concerns about compassion, or the lack thereof, at party council meetings.

“Indeed, Mr. McCartney attended the Central Council meeting of the party last week and had every opportunity to voice his feelings to his colleagues, peers, and those party officers and activists who he hopes to lead someday. He said nothing about compassion even though he spoke about other issues,” he said.

Bethel added that the prime minister’s personal journey from the “bowels of dire poverty” in his childhood to the heights of achievement for the Bahamian people as a “visionary” and “compassionate” leader is well-known.

He is of the view that Ingraham’s love and compassion for the Bahamian people is second to none.

“There may be policy differences which divide politicians, but any attack based upon an alleged lack of compassion is nothing short of political posturing,” said Bethel.

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Bradley Roberts also issued a statement yesterday on McCartney’s remarks on Tuesday.

“The prime minister clearly stands condemned by one of his own,” Roberts said. “Who will be the next to step forward and to be frank and honest with the Bahamian people? McCartney’s projections that the FNM will face great challenges in the coming general election are correct. We indeed need change Bahamas.”

2/3/2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

PLP insiders fear an FNM operative may have been planted inside their party to disrupt the party's public relations machinery - and possibility re-ignite a leadership battle before the next general election

PLPs fear 'FNM operative' may be within party
tribune242


PLP insiders fear an FNM operative may have been planted inside their organisation with intent to disrupt the party's public relations machinery and possibility re-ignite a leadership battle before the next general election.

As a political organisation that prides itself on having a "large tent" and being open to new talent, a number of PLP insiders have expressed their deep seated concerns over the motives of a number of persons who have skyrocketed to "influential" positions within the party overnight.

Seeking access to the party's decision-making process on key political matters, and even trying to gain management of the PLP's website by some of these persons has rubbed some PLPs "the wrong way".

One party insider told The Tribune yesterday they fear with the multitude of persons "offering" assistance - especially in the upkeep of their online campaigns on Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace - it is becoming harder and harder for the organisation to ensure its security.

"In this day and age, every politician, every party must maintain an online presence. It is required. Before it was a luxury, but no more. These websites and pages require maintenance, and depending on who has access to them, the damage to the party could be significant.

"So if you have an MP's Facebook page, for instance, being managed by someone whose sole job it is to keep it updated suddenly decide to go off on a tangent, that could affect the party's image or standing on a particular issue. He or she could have 5,000 followers online and if an update goes out saying that they despise the leader and he should be removed from office, you see what kind of drama could unfold," the source explained.

This kind of online "guerilla warfare" as it was described, is said to be happening every day on social websites.

"Today you might have five or six profiles on Facebook being used by the same FNM operative leaving messages on someone's page. There was the practice where someone would make up a fake profile of politicians and leave ignorant or embarrassing comments, but now it appears a more sinister practice has emerged. And if history has taught us anything, there isn't a better weapon against a well defended force than a Trojan horse," she said.

October 26, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Allyson Maynard-Gibson confirms decision not to run again

Maynard-Gibson confirms decision not to run again
By ALISON LOWE
Tribune Staff Reporter
alowe@tribunemedia.net:



IN the wake of Allyson Maynard-Gibson announcing that she will not run again in Pinewood in the next general election, PLP leader Perry Christie says his party is having difficulty "balancing the old with the new" as it moves to pin down its slate of candidates for the election battle.

Senator and former PLP cabinet minister Mrs Maynard-Gibson confirmed yesterday that she has declined a nomination from Mr Christie for the upcoming election, telling The Tribune she would like to give some younger candidates an opportunity to move up the political ladder.

Meanwhile, in a separate interview with this newspaper, Mr Christie said the party which he hopes to lead into the next election has been inundated with interest from potential candidates hoping to receive nominations to run under the party's banner.

With an anti-incumbent movement growing throughout the world, PLP leader Perry Christie said that his party is faced with the same challenge as scores of people have been lining up to represent the PLP in seats that already have sitting Members of Parliament.

However, while having six or seven candidates vying for any given constituency, Mr Christie said that the party is having difficulty balancing "the old with the new".

Mrs Maynard-Gibson is the second member of the "old guard" of PLPs who it is suggested will not offer again for the party in the next election. PLP MP for Fort Charlotte Alfred Sears is reportedly in consultation with his constituents as to whether or not to offer for re-election for the area.

Nonetheless, Mr Christie told The Tribune he is pleased to see the enthusiasm from younger members of the party.

"There has been a significant increase in young professionals wishing to enter public life on our side. It is really refreshing and bodes well for the future. Our only concern is there is not an equal amount of interest from women seeking to enter politics."

Mrs Gibson, as one of the most prominent female members of the party - and the second in a year to reveal her decision to step down from frontline politics, along with former deputy prime minister Cynthia "Mother" Pratt - says she will now focus on her role as a "mentor" to others outside of politics.

"Over the past five years, in other areas of my life, I have been an advocate for mentorship and I serve as a mentor. I tremendously enjoy this and find it very fulfilling," she said.

She said her determination to allow a younger generation to play a bigger role in the party is in keeping with her father's philosophy "that it is important to step aside to allow room for younger people and to help them prepare and excel at leadership."

"I would like to help the PLP find the right mix of experience and youthful, able enthusiasm that will propel it to victory in the next General Elections," said the former cabinet minister.

Mrs Maynard Gibson was appointed senator for the PLP after running unsuccessfully for the PLP in 2007. She was defeated by the FNM's Byron Woodside, in a result that was ultimately challenged but confirmed in favour of Mr Woodside in an election court challenge.

May 18, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International