Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet is still unfathomable to many Bahamians

Branville McCartney’s Folly


by Simon


Former junior minister Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet under three years is still unfathomable to many Bahamians. Just as his statements since his return to the backbench have proven baffling and contradictory, his stated reasons for leaving remain inexplicable. He claims not to have left over a matter of policy.

In parliamentary systems such as ours, cabinet experience is not a prerequisite for serving as prime minister. Still, it provides one of the best training cum proving grounds for the office. Cabinet service is where a potential chief executive is observed and graded by multiple audiences, including the public at large.

In significant ways, ministers are more closely vetted by those who see them up- close, including civil servants and various national stakeholders. They are sized-up by their party faithful and opposition parties. There is relentless media scrutiny. Yet, there is a smaller though no less critical audience a future prime minister has to impress.

Cabinet is where the nation’s business is prioritized, and where fateful decisions are made affecting the country for generations. Only those who have sat in cabinet truly understand the burdens, the capacity to do so much good for so many, as well as the risk of doing great harm or not doing enough.

People with healthy egos and considerable ambition tend to sit in the cabinet, collaborating and competing. As they wrestle with endless decisions on a dizzying array of issues, they are constantly taking each other’s measure.

PERSPECTIVE

They assess each other as equals and identify who among them may be the best to serve as the first among equals or prime minister. They have a unique perspective. It is a perspective which considers many of the characteristics and skills needed in a potential prime minister at a particular stage in a country’s history.

Though the mild-mannered Clement Attlee did not possess the sizzling charisma of Winston Churchill, he was Labour’s choice to fight the 1945 British general election against the roaring lion who had just triumphantly led the United Kingdom through World War II.

Churchill and his Conservatives lost in a landslide to Atlee’s Labour Party which ushered in the most sweeping social and welfare reforms in British history, including the National Health Service.

Mr. Attlee obviously had to win public support. But before that he had to win the confidence of his party, parliamentary and cabinet colleagues, who were peers of great ambition, strong character and ability.

He had to be tested in terms of his judgement and ability to govern, steadiness under pressure and resilience, and what today we call multiple intelligences, including those of style and substance.

In the political realm, the former refers to one’s political and personal touch, the latter to intellectual capacity. That intellectual capacity includes an ability to appreciate the complexities of various issues, curiosity and a willingness to grow.

Having left the cabinet, the Bamboo Town MP seems more interested in making the case for himself as a future prime minister in the press. In so doing, he has removed himself from one of his toughest audiences as well as one of the best training grounds for prime minister.

There are newcomers who do not follow the traditional path to the ultimate political prize, though these tend to be the exception. And such exception demands exceptional politicians.

Barack Obama and David Cameron are young leaders who, despite relatively few years at the highest levels of national politics, proved exceptional enough to respectively become US President and British Prime Minister in record time.

In addition to impressing media, business and opinion leaders, both won over their political peers and party members and officials. Is Mr. McCartney casting himself in the likes of Messrs. Obama and Cameron? If so, he is not doing terribly well.

The country and his former cabinet colleagues know that he is ambitious. But that ambition does not appear to be tied to great purpose or ability. He has not offered the predicate for why he should be the nation’s chief executive.

In public statements and parliamentary interventions, Mr. McCartney has proven intellectually underwhelming and often glib, seemingly more comfortable with clichés and off the cuff remarks than substantive ideas or vision. Only his cabinet colleagues know how much -- or little -- he offered around the table.

COLLECTIVE

His contention that he left because of being underutilized and insufficiently challenged seems odd. Immigration is a substantial brief with considerable challenges. The rookie politician also had an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate his judgement on the numerous issues which confronted the cabinet as a part of the principle of collective responsibility.

Instead of hunkering down and wrestling with the not so sexy issues and nuts and bolts of government, Mr. McCartney abruptly left. It was an unusual decision given the enormous opportunity and privilege.

Some feel that Mr. McCartney has charisma or style, making him popular with various supporters. But popularity or friends on Facebook is not synonymous with real support. He has also been described by some as being adept at public relations.

A facility with staging events and working the press is not the same as having a compelling message that is considered and serious. In party councils and parliamentary meetings, Mr. McCartney’s colleagues are underwhelmed.

His interventions in the House are rambling, his debating skills are not the strongest and his policy analysis is typically weak. On various immigration matters he often seemed to play to the gallery and nativist instincts.

Significant numbers of illegal migrants have been repatriated to their countries before and after Mr. McCartney’s time at Immigration. Further, he did not stay long enough to institute many of the reforms needed in immigration policy, including modernizing the Department of Immigration.

Mr. McCartney decided to leave cabinet at a moment of considerable historical significance. Instead of staying to help make the many momentous decisions during some of the more difficult days of the recent global financial crisis and now a tentative recovery, he left his post.

He was not in the mix when many of the tough calls were made. He stayed on the margins and in the press mostly noting what his former colleagues had done wrong and at times suggesting what he would have done.

Some observers suggest that Mr. McCartney is stylizing himself after Hubert Ingraham, who made his mark by leaving Sir Lynden Pindling’s cabinet and then retiring his former leader. The historic and character parallels between Mr. Ingraham and Mr. McCartney are weak, with the latter lacking the former’s prodigious intellectual and political skills, not to mention the issue of motive in each case.

TUTORIAL

To better understand Mr. Ingraham’s skills and hone his own, Mr. McCartney would have been wiser had he stayed in his cabinet to learn up-close from the successful prime minister he wishes to succeed. From Hubert Ingraham he would have enjoyed an unparalleled tutorial in political and executive leadership.

Mr. Ingraham knows that he must prepare for the future leadership of his party and the country after he leaves office. Towards this end, he has publicly noted that he is providing opportunities for a new generation of leaders. One of those was Branville McCartney, who appears to believe that he is ready to be prime minister now.

Many politicians have been felled or had their plans disrupted because of overreach. As he proceeds, Mr. McCartney may want to seek the wise counsel of the Grecian tragedies as the counsel he is keeping is failing him -- miserably.

He might wish to recall the fate of Icarus, who tumbled from great heights to the ground because of unbridled ego and hubris. In addition to the Greeks, Mr. McCartney may wish to immerse himself in the workings of cabinet government.

He may come to better appreciate that in his desire to become first among equals in the cabinet, he needs to demonstrate that he is truly a team player and a peer committed to collective responsibility instead of overweening personal ambition.

Unlike Clement Atlee, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Hubert Ingraham, Mr. McCartney has not come near to convincing his peers and political colleagues that he has the gravitas needed to be prime minister.

In his march of folly, he may wish to remember that he is seeking to become the Bahamian prime minister in a system of collective responsibility, not president of a system such as that of the United States. Yet even in the latter system, one has to win the support of political colleagues, something Mr. McCartney has utterly failed to do.

bahamapundit

Bahamas Blog International

Tommy Turnquest: New voter register to start in April

By Candia Dames ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:



The government is preparing to start a new voter register, and plans to use the latest technology to help ensure that mistakes that arose on the register used for the 2007 general election are kept at an irreducible minimum, according to Tommy Turnquest, the minister responsible for parliamentary elections.

Turnquest said the government will begin a new register in April.

"We will like to ensure that a new register of voters is compiled, one that would show that persons are where they say they live," he said.

The process for a new register will be the first since Election Court judges said two years ago that the Pinewood challenge had exposed "the most egregious failures in the parliamentary system."

That ruling was handed down by Senior Justice Anita Allen and now Senior Justice Jon Isaacs.

At the time of the controversial Pinewood matter, the judges said, "The parliamentary commissioner failed, for whatever reason, to ensure the integrity of the registration process in Pinewood."

Turnquest said the Parliamentary Registration Department will be given the time and resources it needs to do its work right.

"The reason why we want to start early is so that we have sufficient time to ensure that all those potential errors are eliminated to the maximum extent possible," he said.

Turnquest said the department will engage in intense cross checking in its efforts to cut back on mistakes on the new register. He said this attention to detail was evident in the department's work leading up to the February 16 by-election in Elizabeth.

"I think that as a result of what they did, as a result of what the political parties did, a large number of persons who no longer live in Elizabeth didn't show up," he said.

Commenting on the importance of giving the department enough time and resources to do its work, the minister said, "There's nothing more important than having free and fair elections in a democracy. It doesn't matter who you vote for, but it has to be one person, one vote, that you are supposed to vote where you live and only where you live."

As noted previously by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, Turnquest said it is the primary duty of the prime minister to ensure a clean register and to have free and fair elections.

"And he intends to do so," Turnquest said. "As his minister responsible, it is my duty to ensure that's carried out."

Ingraham said repeatedly during the lead up to and after the recent by-election that whatever is wrong with the current register is the fault of former prime minister Perry Christie.

While stressing that he does not wish to offer any public commentary on what the Election Court judges said in the Pinewood ruling, Turnquest said yesterday he thought it was unfortunate that Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel did not have an opportunity to tell his side of the story during the Pinewood case.

"I try not to comment on decisions of the court for obvious reasons, but I thought the parliamentary commissioner ought to have been given an opportunity to put his position with regard to some of the errors associated with the last general election," the minister said.

"The Parliamentary Elections Act and our constitution accords for a Boundaries Commission that is supposed to meet every five years and is supposed to present a report to Parliament, and that is supposed to be done in sufficient time to allow any changes that have to take place... Unfortunately, prior to the last general election in May 2007, the boundaries report wasn't concluded until the beginning of April, and so they had very little time to make changes and get cards back to persons and have all of that before the May elections."

Turnquest said that as a result many people found themselves registered in the wrong polling divisions and in the wrong constituency.

"And so, I thought it somewhat unfair to chastise the parliamentary commissioner without taking it further to find the root of the problem, and we're going to ensure that at least the root is taken care of this time by making sure that we do it in sufficient time and that the parliamentary commissioner and his staff will have sufficient time to ensure that the register is clean."

Wednesday 10, 2010


thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International