Michael Telairin, Coordinator of the United Haitian Bahamian Association of The Bahamas says that Haitian President Michel Martelly’s visit to The Bahamas this week was positive, but his message was misunderstood... ...Martelly said that those Haitian-Bahamians who have the opportunity to vote in The Bahamas' upcoming general election, should support the party who has their interest at heart ...and these comments are articulated by every politician and religious leader ...so it should not have such a negative reaction

Haitian-Bahamian group says Martelly was misunderstood

By Royston Jones Jr
Guardian Staff Reporter
royston@nasguard.com

United Haitian Bahamian Association of The Bahamas Coordinator, Michael Telairin, said yesterday Haitian President Michel Martelly’s visit to The Bahamas this week was positive, but his message was misunderstood.

Telairin also said Martelly’s timing was “unfortunate due to the political climate” which has escalated the negative reaction to his message to members of the Haitian community here.

Telairin is a Bahamian citizen, whose parents are of Haitian descent.

Martelly spoke to thousands of Haitians and Haitian-Bahamians on Tuesday night at the Church of God on Joe Farrington Road.

He urged them to form a voting bloc in The Bahamas and align themselves with the political party that will best serve their interests.

“I told them to organize themselves and identify in the upcoming election who is on their side. That way they can become a force. By being [unified] in the elections they might have people taking care of them. . .this is the democratic way,” said Martelly on Wednesday.

However, the Haitian Embassy said yesterday that some of Martelly’s comments were misunderstood, claiming “he did not intend to interfere in any way with the internal politics of The Bahamas”.

The statement noted that the primary purpose of the president’s visit was to discuss business and investment opportunities in Haiti to improve the lives of Haitians so they do not have to migrate to other countries.

“The Embassy of Haiti wants to highlight the importance of making inroads towards improving relations between the two countries through mutual and respectful cooperation,” the statement said.

Telairin reiterated that Martelly’s message was taken out of context and insisted that message was very informative and needed.

“[The president’s message and] visit really wasn’t to stir up any commotion,” Telairin said.

Radio talk shows were flooded with calls from angry Bahamians yesterday, claiming that Martelly’s comments would encourage newly regularized Bahamians to vote for the Free National Movement.

“The negative opinions that Bahamians have been expressing on many radio talk shows are not called for,” Telairin said.

“He (Martelly) said that those who have the opportunity to vote, should vote for the party who has their interest at heart and these comments are articulated by every politician and religious leader so it should not have such a negative reaction.

“His position right now is to get the people to understand that he is for them and his address and tour during his time here was to reinforce that message.”

Telairin added, “What he was also telling [Haitians and Haitian-Bahamians] in attendance...is that they have to understand they should not expect all the laws in The Bahamas to be to their advantage and he said to continue to respect the law of the land.”

Martelly arrived in The Bahamas Tuesday night and left on Wednesday.

Feb 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) receives "mixed reviews" from the general public on its official launch

'MIXED REVIEWS' AFTER DNA'S OFFICIAL LAUNCH

tribune242


AFTER its official launch on Thursday night at the Wyndham Crystal Palace Resort, the Democratic National Alliance is getting "mixed reviews" from the general public.

According to numerous persons interviewed by this newspaper, many agreed that the DNA was successful in drawing a large crowd to their official launch - a feat unmatched to this date by any third party option since Independence.

While many speculated as well on the actual make-up of this crowd, whether persons were there primarily as supporters or mere spectators, it was still noted that for the DNA to fill the hotel's ballroom was an accomplishment "in and of itself."

However, the commentary on the actual content of Branville McCartney's speech was another matter.

According to one online blogger on The Tribune's website, tribune242.com, C'Mon Man, there was little difference in Mr McCartney's speech from any other that was delivered by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham or PLP Leader Perry Christie.

"If you closed your eyes during Bran's speech last night, it would have been difficult to discern from the content of the speech Bran from Hubert Ingraham or Perry Christie because all I heard was the same old politician speak. We gonna do dis for you, we gonna do dat for you and we gonna make all your dreams come true without ever saying where the money gonna come from to do these things.

"We Bahamians say we don't like to be talked down to, but everytime a politician talk to us like this they are talking down to us by telling us what they think we want to hear. It would have been refreshing for a politician to just be honest for a change and tell it like it is the good, bad and the ugly. Otherwise we will only be changing faces with the same old politics," the blogger noted.

Erasmus Folly, a regular blogger on tribune242.com also wrote that he was not impressed with the DNA's launch.

"The candidates leave much to be desired. The guy from Exuma already proved he doesn't understand business. The others, I don't know enough about, but I am not convinced. I'd like to see Bran win his (seat), with maybe one or two others from that party and see if they can sound sensible in Parliament over the next five years.

"Then perhaps see for the following election if they can offer more or win other credible candidates to their cause. I'd like to see change, but if it is wishy washy, then it is a waste of time. Faith in the people, which he drones on about, is a very, very vague term and means nothing. I'm always wary of fluff, too much talk of 'listening' and a speech without a clear and discernible plan of action.

"It is not enough to say that if you put the 'people first' everything will work out. Tyrants and leaders obsessed with their own charisma always talk most loudly about putting the people first and rarely manage to deliver anything of the kind," he said.

'Watching Jane' -- another blogger --added: "I like Bran as a person, but I must say I was not impressed by the speech, it lacked substance and was far too long!'

However there were also positive reviews of the DNA's launch from online viewers and those persons interviewed yesterday.

"Philosopher King" wrote that that the DNA is off to a good start, and "Androsian Finest" said that Mr McCartney needs to "work fast" and do what he needs to do because the FNM "is up to something."

"We in Andros have your back - we for you. DNA all the way! Last night was great," the blogger wrote.

Stanley Jackson Sr added that congratulations are in order for Mr McCartney and the DNA for their "overwhelmingly" successful launch.

"Never in Bahamian history has a third party garnered such huge support. Mr McCartney's delivery was excellent, well poised and answered every question necessary and more at this juncture as an introductory for the DNA. Indeed he offers hope Obama style . . . which is sorely needed in our country after 44 years of failure, rampant corruption, film flam, double talk, razzle dazzle and broken promises from the PLP and FNM who find themselves hopelessly compromised by special interest and unable to govern," he said.

May 14, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Craig Butler calls for Bahamian politicians to come clean about their drug use... insisting that every potential candidate undergo drug testing ahead of the upcoming general election

MPs Challenged To Take Drug Tests

BY KENDENO N. P. KNOWLES
jonesbahamas




The 41 sitting Members of Parliament are being challenged by one political hopeful to undergo drug testing ahead of the upcoming general elections. But more than that, Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Treasurer Craig Butler is insisting that every potential candidate undergo the same testing.

Mr. Butler, who has long sought a position in high office through his political party, but has never been successful because of his troubled past plagued with drug use, namely cocaine, made this call for politicians to come clean about their drug use on Wednesday.

The aspiring politician told the Bahama Journal yesterday that, "Anybody running for a seat in the House of Assembly, and all candidates or anybody who offers themselves as a candidate should be tested without question."

And while in The Bahamas, there exists a Public Disclosure Act where candidates are asked to reveal information about their finances, investigations carried out by the Bahama Journal revealed that in countries like the United States and Canada, politicians both serving and aspiring, are asked to disclose financial as well as medical information among other things.

"Getting tested for drugs is just one of the requirements when people are applying for jobs and a number of other things. So why shouldn’t those people who sit in the halls of Parliament be tested for drug use," Mr. Butler asked.

"I do not think any of the MPs should have an issue with this but I also do not think anyone will even consider this possibility."

Questioned as to the validity of claims made about certain sitting members abusing presently or previously abusing drugs, Mr. Butler was more than reluctant to answer.

Instead, Mr. Butler says we perhaps will never really know for sure what someone has done or is doing without this drug testing.

"I am not about to go down that road and state whether or not I think anyone in [the House of Assembly may be guilty of drug use]," he said.

"As I’ve stated on the record, almost a decade ago yes I did have my problems and anyone who has ever been in my position, I guess there will always be some question marks that will remain.

"But I think a drug test should be required of everyone running for office. Nobody ever knows what someone else is really doing."

In fact, Mr. Butler feels the Public Disclosure Act should be amended to include drug testing, as is the case in other jurisdictions.

For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union recently reported that Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott not to long ago made drug tests mandatory for all state workers

And even as the PLP has snubbed Mr. Butler for a chance at a seat in the House of Assembly, he feels other political hopefuls should not be overlooked because of mistakes made in the past.

"I do not think that people who may have in the past used drugs should be hindered from running for office. I think it is being classified with other abuses such as alcohol, gambling and various other addictions as a disease. And the medical community is accepting it as a disease.

"Unfortunately anyone can fall prey to a disease at any point in time and there is various forms of treatment that a person can get to alleviate themselves from any addiction they may have fallen prey to. This is nothing that I think that will preclude somebody from seeking higher office and or being able to ably serve their country.

"So a person that has gone down the road that I have gone should not automatically be singled out because of the mistakes they made in the past.

"And at the end of the day anyone who is presently in the halls of Parliament and or seeking the halls of parliament who is dealing with any addictions we would like to see them get help."

May 12th, 2011

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party will have a lot of competition this election season...

Politicians Dismiss DNA

By ROGAN SMITH
jonesbahamas



After Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney quit the Free National Movement (FNM) he had one goal in mind – forming a party to challenge both the FNM and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), but according to a politician whose organisation declined an invitation to join Mr. McCartney’s new party, he was not "equipped" to do so.

Omar Smith, along with Cassius Stuart, recently dissolved their party, the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) to join the FNM. They took their members along with them.

The men, who served as deputy leader and leader respectively, had been in talks with Mr. McCartney after he quit the FNM several months ago to become an independent MP.

Mr. McCartney was also in talks with the leaders of several other third parties trying to woo them to join his party.

However, the Bahama Journal recently reported that many of those leaders did not take his party seriously.

Mr. Smith explained why he chose not to team up with Mr. McCartney.

"When Mr. McCartney asked to speak with us – and we were more than willing to speak to anyone who was interested in national development – at that time he came to us and he said that he wanted us to join him. At that time I don’t think he was equipped, he didn’t have an organisation and he hasn’t put out a philosophy of what he wants to do," Mr. Smith said.

"I was curious to find out. I asked him and he didn’t have [a philosophy]. All he represented to me is that he wanted to challenge the PLP and the FNM and that wasn’t enough information. So, I wish him well, as I wish any young person who wants to do what he believes in. I think I have a little bit more experience in third parties than he has, but I wish him well and I wish him luck."

Mr. Smith was a guest on the Love 97 talk show, Issues of the Day with host, Algernon Allen yesterday.

When the BDM set out more than a decade ago, it sought to become a viable alternative to the two major political parties. But, the party failed to make waves on the political scene.

In fact, it has contested three elections since it was formed, but has failed to win any seat.

"After we were unsuccessful in three elections [2002, 2007 and the 2010 by-election] and after going door to door in so many constituencies and having people say that they supported what we were doing . . . [we realised that] there’s a different dynamic at work here. Bahamians want to make sure that their vote counts," he said.

"If they are under the impression that your organisation does not have the possibility of winning, or they don’t think you have the possibility of winning that particular seat, they will make sure that their second option gets there."

He continued, "I can still remember going up to these houses where I know these families were once PLP or FNM and they [said they] supported what we were doing. But, when they got to the poll they would say ‘Omar, listen I support what you’re doing, believe me, we support you, but we got to make sure that they don’t come in, we’ve got to keep them out’."

Mr. McCartney and his party will have a lot of competition this election season as there are several other third parties vying for a chance to become the government.

Attorney Paul Moss, activist Rodney Moncur and former journalist Ali McIntosh all have their own political parties.

"I want to encourage all of those people who believe in a cause and believe in certain principles that they’d like see come to fruition to go out there and advocate and push, however, when you look at the lay of the land and look at the reality of Bahamian politics you will come to realise that it is very very difficult to make those inroads," Mr. Smith said.

"There are certain resources that must come to bear for you to have an opportunity to make that leap into parliament. While I wish them well, I think the reality is going to be something different."

During his talk show appearance, Mr. Smith was berated by a number of callers, who suggested he was a hypocrite for becoming a part of an organisation that he had heavily criticised for more than a decade.

The callers noted that Mr. Smith and the BDM were especially tough on FNM Leader and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.

But, he said, "If I’m in opposition to you it’s not my job to point out your strengths even though sometimes I did give credit where credit was due. It is not my position to build you up. It’s not my position to say the things that you are doing [well] for the most part. It is my position to critique you and say what you are doing wrong and say how they should be done. That is the way the process works," he said.

Mr. Smith said the FNM has given him and several of the new members assurances that they would be considered for seats and positions within the party.

"There are members outside of Mr. Stuart and myself who are frontrunners for constituencies for the next election. There’s a process within the organisation and I’m familiarising myself with the process and the members of our organisation have been received so well by the FNM and the branches," he said.

Mr. Smith says he is already campaigning.

May 4th, 2011

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

If Branville McCartney takes the third party course, he could be committing political suicide

Would you vote for a third party?

thenassauguardian editorial


Since the resignation of Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney from the Free National Movement (FNM) Monday, the national airwaves have been dominated by talk of the formation of a third political party to challenge the FNM and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

The last major politician to try the third party route was former PLP deputy leader Dr. Bernard Nottage in 2002 when his Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR) took on the two major parties. Dr. Nottage’s party failed and he lost his seat. CDR candidates were crushed as non-contenders at the polls.

At the time Bahamians were upset with the FNM, which was fractured and falling apart. They chose to go with a Perry Christie. He was a part of a major political force and he was also a new face to leadership. Christie ran as a “new PLP”, seeking to break with the somewhat tarnished legacy of the defeated old PLP.

At that 2002 election there was something new that was still a part of the mainstream for Bahamians to choose. Dr. Nottage could not compete with that.

Almost ten years later, a young, attractive and charismatic politician (McCartney) may try the same thing. He is not as politically accomplished as Dr. Nottage was at the time he led the CDR to defeat. However, McCartney may have an advantage if he pursues the same course.

At this general election, neither political party has anything new to offer at the leadership level. FNM leader Hubert Ingraham and PLP leader Perry Christie both entered the House of Assembly in 1977. Both men are known. Neither man can claim to be new. Neither man can suggest he can offer something he has not already offered during his long political career.

At this election it could be argued that a message could be presented, stating that Ingraham and Christie, and the FNM and the PLP, are the same thing and a new direction is needed for the country. In recent years there have been annual murder records; the down economy has persisted; and the Bahamian education system is doing poorly.

Though this environment exists, it is unclear if Bahamians will break with the PLP/FNM duopoly.

The key for any third party movement would be to determine if dissatisfaction with the parties could be harnessed into votes. If that dissatisfaction cannot be, starting a third party will only waste money.

Ultimately, Bahamians will have to decide if they will accept others at the national table of decision making or if they think only card carrying PLPs or FNMs should lead The Bahamas.

Before any third party enters the election arena it should understand what is at stake. If defeated badly at the general election, the force will look like a joke never to be considered again.

If McCartney takes the third party course, he would be risking his political career. His force would need to make some sort of impact.

3/23/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest in our beloved Bahamas

'Political operatives' and the 'criminally-minded'
tribune242 editorial




POLICE Staff Association president Dwight Smith during an interview with the press after the February 23 demonstration on Bay Street urged politicians to stop politicising issues.

He was defending his Force from a politician's criticism of the worth of police reports, which were used in another case to decide the suitability of a person for a high office. Mr Smith was also smarting under the criticism of how "over prepared" police were when they arrived on Bay Street for the BTC demonstration. It would have been irresponsible - after a union leader had declared that a "small Egypt" was needed on Bay Street to protest the sale of BTC - if police had not come fully prepared -- with its canine unit and all. The unionist was accused of instigating social unrest, and so the police were ready.

Mr Smith pointed out that the type of persons he saw among the crowd that day made it necessary for the police to do their job to ensure the safety of protesters and observers. He said the police had difficulty with those participating in the protest who had "nothing to do with BTC," but were there "advancing political groups."

"We saw so many things that were going on. I, for one, wondered if we were dealing with a BTC situation or if we were dealing with a political situation. For the life of me I could not understand what was going on," Mr Smith told the press.

The demonstration was said to have been organised by the Committee to Save BTC, but PLP members made a strong appearance.

Mr Smith said downtown merchants called to complain about a group of young protesters who were dropped off in the George Street area. As they walked to the protest, merchants claimed they stopped in store after store "causing a disturbance."

"I walked there personally and saw them. I knew some of them and talked to them. I heard them say, if they did not get paid there is going to be problems. I had to encourage some of them to come out of the stores. They had no reason to go in the stores.

"They were just being disruptive," said Mr Smith.

"My view is there were only a handful of persons there who were really dealing with BTC. If you were to speak to some of those persons, they did not know why they were out there. They did not know what they were out there for. If we were to really do the due diligence, we'll find a lot of them did not understand what was going on," he said.

It was suggested that "political operatives" had paid many persons -- some if them referred to by the police as "criminally minded" -- to demonstrate on Bay Street. As the late Kendal Isaacs, QC, who refused his party's request to lead a demonstration, pointed out, he would have been responsible for any breach of the peace caused by the demonstrators. These "political operatives," and Rodney Moncur, who has called for 10,000 demonstrators, should reconsider the consequences. And to help them understand their responsibilities the police should enforce the law -- especially against persons who would have paid these demonstrators to create the disturbance.

How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest and then demand that they obey the law when their services are no longer needed? We expect the police to protect residents against these very same people. However, when caught by the law they will look to their political paymasters to save them from prison.

Reminds us of the PLP election when drug dealers were desperate that the PLP be returned to power. Rightly or wrongly, true or false, there was the perception that this party was their guardian. The call was passed down the line -- especially in Eleuthera -- to get the fast boats ready. As soon as the PLP were elected the operators expected to be back in business. Some were so bold that they talked openly to our reporters, calling names of their political protectors.

We recall the talks that Magistrate Hercules and the late Sir Etienne Dupuch had many years ago when they took their morning constitutional on Cayman's Five Mile Beach. Magistrate Hercules, a tough, no nonsense magistrate, left the Bahamas after several years here. His complaint was about the political interference he had to suffer when certain "criminally-minded persons" appeared before him. It was more than he could take.

If we expect the police to be effective in controlling crime, then this culture of using persons on the wrong side of the law when it suits certain purposes, must end.

March 16, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Kendal Isaacs: ...a reasonable, and responsible man

Why Sir Kendal refused to lead a demonstration

tribune242 editorial





SEVERAL years ago the late Sir Kendal Isaacs, then leader of the FNM, resisted the urging of his members to lead a peaceful protest outside the House of Assembly. We do not recall the occasion, but it was just after the conclusion of the Commission of Inquiry into drug smuggling when there was much political unrest in the country.

Sir Kendal, not only a reasonable, but a responsible man, said he would never take the responsibility of leading a demonstration. Why? Because, no one could control a crowd of people, especially if they should turn into a frenzied mob. He did not want to shoulder the inevitable tragic consequences of damage a violent mob could do. So there was no demonstration.

Speaking to party members at their Gambier headquarters last Tuesday, PLP Leader Perry Christie told supporters that come the 2012 election the PLP was committed to "play it straight." The party's campaign will be "aggressive" and "spirited", he promised, but would be conducted with "respect for, and adherence, to the elementary values of integrity, decency and dignity that are so sorely lacking in our country today."

Mr Christie said his party was going "to set the pace and set the tone because we are convinced that political morality, human decency and civility require us to do so."

Of course we saw none of this high-mindedness displayed when a crowd descended on Rawson Square on February 23, as police struggled to hold the barricades and shouts went up to "secure the House."

It was meant to be a peaceful union demonstration to save BTC from the clutches of C&W, but unionists were sidelined in a swirl of PLP supporters dressed in yellow "no turning back" shirts and a large contingent of PLP youth.

One policeman later commented that the first hand he saw touch a metal barricade to force it down was that of a man with a murder charge pending. Rumours were rife, resulting in National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest eventually confirming that, according to police reports, several violent criminals were also among the crowd protesting outside Parliament that day.

Mr Christie was quick to deny the rumours that many protesters were paid by the PLP to demonstrate. He said he certainly "paid no one." He also condemned Mr Turnquest for using "confidential police information" about criminal elements being a part of what was meant to be a "peaceful" demonstration, but turned out to be anything but peaceful. Of course, on such an occasion, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell had to get in his own snide remark about paid demonstrators. "Aside from that being untrue, so what if they were paid?" he asked, referring to the practice during the PLP's early protests in the 1960s.

"To mobilise people takes resources: food, buses, and communication, emergency care to name a few of the possible expenses.

"So let's not get distracted by that fact."

We don't intend to get distracted by that fact, nor were the police to be distracted. Upset by another remark made in another context by Mr Mitchell about police reports, Police Staff Association president Dwight Smith stepped in to confirm on Friday that criminally-minded people were overheard to say that they had been paid to participate in the February 23 protest. And, he added, it was undeniable that there were people in the crowd with potential criminal motives. Mr Smith urged politicians to stop policising issues. Police already had a difficult crime problem to deal with, they had no need for politicians to add to their responsibilities.

The leader of the Opposition's office is located in the Bayparl building, as are several other offices, including the Ministry of Tourism. Reports from eyewitnesses and eavesdroppers tell the following tale:

After the court gave its ruling on the Elizabeth Estate election case, a group of persons lined the stairs leading the door of the Opposition's office. Among them was a "gentleman" who is extremely well known to the police. The persons on the stairs made it known to everyone within earshot that they were there for their "f money!" Someone opened the Opposition door and gave them some money. They were not satisfied. "Listen," said their spokesman, "we did what you asked us to do, now we want our money!" They were shouting the names of two MPs. They demanded to see them. Mr Christie was not one of them.

About a week ago Wednesday, after the recent demonstration, a group of boys were again outside the same office, asking for a certain PLP politician -- again not Mr Christie. This time they were demanding their money for the part they had played in the Bay Street demonstration.

Persons who were there described a scene that suggested that these persons needed money to reimburse them for more than Mr Mitchell's necessary bus ride to get to the site of the action.

March 14, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Branville McCartney support in the Free National Movement (FNM) has collapsed

What was Branville McCartney thinking?
thenassauguardian national review



The headline for this piece is the question that just about everyone has been asking since McCartney made the now famous statement — that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has no compassion.

McCartney, a sitting FNM MP who has made no secret of his leadership aspirations, made the startling statement last week Tuesday during an appearance on Star 106.5 FM’s talk show, “Jeffrey”, hosted by Jeff Lloyd.

This is exactly what McCartney told Lloyd: “At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges. 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.

“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”

When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.

“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.”

For anyone who doubted the statement or its context reported exclusively by The Nassau Guardian on Wednesday, McCartney repeated his feelings about the Prime Minister and the state of the Free National Movement during an interview with NB12 TV news later that night.

The statement drew a strong response from the public, much like his decision to resign from Ingraham’s Cabinet after serving just under two years as a junior minister in the ministries of tourism and immigration. McCartney thought he was being “underutilized”.

Now a new round of questions surrounding McCartney’s political strategy and his political future hang heavily over the relative newcomer to politics.

Is this the final chapter in McCartney’s political career? Maybe not, but the young politician does not appear to be making any friends in the FNM.

“His (McCartney’s) support in the party has collapsed,” said a well-placed source within the FNM who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the party. “Any residual support he had has collapsed.

“You can’t keep going around lacerating the Prime Minister and the FNM for all the wrong things they are doing, but then say, ‘I support the party’. “It doesn’t make sense.”

PARTY VS. PUBLIC SUPPORT

Those outside the FNM seem similarly confused.

“If Branville is listening to people out there who may be clamoring for him to be the leader of the FNM, the question is are they people who can vote for him at convention. If not, he ought to recognize that it’s not meaningful support,” said Raynard Rigby, a former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.

“If he has support within the FNM he ought to figure out and think through how his open criticism of the leader will factor into the minds of his supporters. You can be popular in the eyes of the public, but party support is what matters if you are interested in a leadership position, and you saw that in the deputy leadership race in the PLP. Obie Wilchcombe was seen as more popular but Brave (Davis) beat him convincingly because he had the support of the party.”

George Smith, a veteran politician who served in the Sir Lynden Pindling administration, suggests that McCartney has failed to do just that — think things through, at least when it came to last week’s statement.

“The statement probably reflects what he is thinking, but he obviously did not weigh it carefully. In politics when you say something that makes you appear bold and courageous you may have to pay a price,” said Smith.

Only time will tell what that price will be, but there are already the obvious suggestions that McCartney may not receive the FNM nomination to run in Bamboo Town as a result of the “no compassion” remark.

“Make no mistake, FNMs have their own problems with Hubert Ingraham, but the party does not like these attacks which are seen as extremely disloyal to the party,” said the FNM source. “He is providing attack lines to the opposition. That’s a serious thing.”

McCartney has said that if he does not get the nomination he would run as an independent or “otherwise”. That “otherwise” is unlikely to be the PLP, given the boost an independent McCartney in Bamboo Town would give to the chances of the opposition winning that seat.

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

Independents, generally, fare very poorly in general elections in The Bahamas, unless they receive the support of a political party that may decide not to run anyone in that seat.

While there have been success stories, such as Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham (Tennyson Wells and Pierre Dupuch to a lesser extent), those men had years and years of experience in office and serving in Cabinet before turning independent, and had been battle-tested.

McCartney has neither the wealth of experience nor the political battle wounds to carry him through the trials of the “political wilderness”, and cast him as a maverick independent.

But what McCartney does appear to have is a certain appeal to a segment of the public that is hungry for a new face to lead the country. “Sick of Ingraham and Scared of Christie” is becoming a mantra among many young professional Bahamians who are openly declaring their intentions of sitting out the next general election.

McCartney is a successful lawyer and a seemingly dedicated and conscientious MP. He has a certain talent for public relations and is good at using technology and social media to connect with young voters. And whatever his critics may say, he is not afraid to publically criticize the government or his party, which in some quarters has been interpreted as ambitious and courageous.

McCartney has also taken a tough stance on two hot button issues in the country — illegal immigration and crime — and while everyone has not always agreed with his approach, his decision to publically state his positions has been generally well-received by the public.

Whether McCartney decides to bide his time in the FNM — although that seems unlikely in light of his recent statements — or become an independent, the road ahead will not be easy.

“When you are in Cabinet you have a level of public persona associated with the position. In the back bench you have to continually redefine who you are politically to maintain a public presence,” said Rigby.

This is a point obviously not lost on McCartney, who since resigning from Cabinet has made a number of headlines, more recently for showing up at a BTC unions anti-privatization rally, and telling reporters that he was undecided on an issue that his party obviously supports.

But if McCartney is to succeed in one of the mainstream political parties, he will have to work on how his actions and statements are being interpreted by those who make the decisions in those parties — the more experienced politicians who in this political climate call the shots.

AMBITION OR ARROGANCE

What some have interpreted as ambition and courage, others have interpreted as arrogance and inexperience.

“If he had said what he said in a way that people could better interpret he would have shown good political acumen, but by being so (publicly) honest he clearly has positioned himself in a way that the party has to deal with him,” said Smith, who emphasized that personally he is very fond of McCartney.

“Longevity is not on his side. He has not been around long enough. He’s a newcomer.

“He must have tremendous talent and personality which permits him to be effective, courteous, respectful and show that he has learned the game well enough and get people to say of him the many things he says of himself.”

A former politician who spent decades in frontline politics said of McCartney:

“He was in Cabinet for less than two years and then said he wanted to be leader or a substantive minister. It’s admirable to have ambition to go to the top but there’s a road, a protocol. Dion (Foulkes) and Tommy (Turnquest) came up through the party.

“I thought he was trying to do a good job in immigration, he made some errors but at least he was doing something. If he is able to control this particular situation he may survive but he has to get a handle on his public posturing.”

Among his colleagues, McCartney reportedly has little support.

“None of his Cabinet colleagues take him seriously. I don’t think he is seen as a contender. By resigning from Cabinet he removed himself as a contender for leadership,” said the FNM source.

McCartney was appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office, took many by surprise when he decided to resign last year February.

According to his resignation letter: “The factors that motivated this run the full gamut of issues and emotions, some more compelling than others. In the forefront are my feelings of stagnation and the inability to fully utilize my political potential at this time.”

He went on to say: “It is also my belief that our current political system is headed in the wrong direction…I have already proven myself on many levels and have much to be proud of, but it would be wrong of me to assume that I have proven myself to you without demonstrating the strength and diversity of knowledge you deserve.”

An interview following that resignation only added to the confusion.

McCartney said that as a member of the Cabinet he was required to tow the party line, and thought he could do more outside of the Ingraham Cabinet, “speak out on what is right and not based on party lines”.

He said at the time: “There is no doubt that the prime minister, Hubert Alexander Ingraham, is the best man for the job at this time. He is no doubt the best leader that we have had in our party and he remains that way today… I respect him, I support him. He has my full, full support.”

McCartney said at the time that he had no intention of challenging Ingraham for the leadership of the party. But that line changed later that year when McCartney made it known that if the FNM held its convention that year he would offer himself for leader. The FNM decided not to hold the convention, citing financial and other reasons.

WASTED OPPORTUNITY

Some thought that the opportunity to serve in the Cabinet was a great training ground for anyone with leadership aspirations, even if you disliked the style or some of the decisions of the prime minister.

“He had a chance to make his mark but he left. It takes years to make change but he didn’t give himself a chance,” said the FNM source, who pointed out that Ingraham obviously saw potential in McCartney or else he would not have been appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office.

Another criticism that has been leveled against McCartney is that he is not a team player, and had to be reminded that “Branville does not have a policy, the government has a policy”.

Some of his actions as junior minister in immigration were controversial and interpreted as grandstanding. Not only did it raise eyebrows in the country but warranted review by the prime minister.

“If he had remained in the cabinet, continued to perform and perform well, show that he was more politically savvy he would have had a good shot in serving in the leadership of the FNM,” said Rigby.

“His future may look dim today but that could change down the road. He must demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, at times it may be necessary to publicly criticize the party and leader but you have to be prepared to be an agent of change.”

2/7/2011

thenassauguardian national review

Bahamas Blog International

Echoes of a General Strike

The Bahama Journal Editorial




For better or worse, there are lessons that always come with the struggle for power; whether this battle has to do with who gets to determine how money is spent in a household, in an organization anywhere civil society, in a firm or at the state level.

Even more simply, politics is about who gets what, when, where and how; in addition, it is also about the definition of that party or individual whose will must be obeyed.

In other words, then, as in our own fledgling democracy; the question today arises concerning whether the governing party should, would or could yield to demands currently being made by some of this nation’s union leadership.

Among the instruments they say they have is that one that allows them to withdraw their labor and that of their membership in the event that the governing party does not yield to their demands.

We seriously doubt that, they have this level of support.

In addition, the fact remains that, this is just not the way things are done in today’s Bahamas.

Indeed, while unions and their membership do have the right to protest any policy they see fit; and even though they do have the right to take the government to court, they do not have any real right to hold any government hostage.

And for sure, it is a fact that the governing party has a mandate to lead and that –as such – they are called upon to lead. They also have promises to be kept.

Clearly, then, no right-thinking government should ever put itself in a position where it must endlessly consult with everyone; or for that matter, anyone else other than those given a similar mandate by the people.

This comes as a direct result of the free vote and expression of the people in free and fair elections.

Thereafter, the government leads and its Loyal Opposition opposes; with one party having its sway and the other its say.

We dare say that, anything else is a clear invitation to both foolishness and anarchy.

While we do believe all of what we are saying; we hasten to add that, no government worth its salt would ever so paint itself into a corner by alienating the masses of people who identify themselves as workers.

But by the same token, union leadership must always be mindful that while they are called to lead, this call must always be tempered by what is in the very best interests of their followers.

What makes this situation so very important is the fact that workers are voters. This means that whenever they wish, they can bring a government to grief and despair. These workers who are also voters know as well as anyone else that the choices they make can determine whether one side wins or the other loses.

This means that when workers become restive enough, their approval of this or that politician matters greatly.

Compounding the matter in the Bahamian case is the fact that the Bahamian labor force is compact, well organized, knows and feels its power.

Politicians who wish to be re-elected cannot ignore these people and their demands.

No politician worth his salt would ever dare express contempt or disdain for those voters who are workers.

We make this obvious point as we try to make sense of what seems increased restiveness on the part of very many public sector workers.

On occasion, their main gripe seems to concern money. At other times, workers and their representatives seem to be preoccupied with matters germane to respect.

In addition, there are times like the ones in which we live where some union leaders seem to have reached that point where – like politicians in their guise as law-makers – they would pontificate on matters germane to policy.

Here they are embarked –as it were – on a journey without maps; and here we are reminded that, history does not repeat itself.

We make this point as we reflect on some of what is today being said about how today’s political climate is seemingly reminiscent of that era in the late 1950’s when there was both call and response to the idea of a General Strike.

That great call was made by Randol F. Fawkes, Clifford Darling and Lynden O. Pindling.

Out of this great struggle has come a modern Bahamas where the rights of workers are enshrined in the law.

This we do in free and fair elections.

All else is anathema.

In the final analysis, then, law-making and policy should be left where the Constitution places them – squarely and fully in the hands of this nation’s parliamentarians.

That is why we boast so much about the longevity of parliamentary democracy in the Bahamas.

January 06, 2011

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham's announcement that he planned to remain at the helm of the FNM, and fight the next election was indeed welcome news

Prime Minister Ingraham – we shall carry on
tribune242 editorial


PRIME MINISTER Hubert Ingraham's announcement over the weekend that he planned to remain at the helm of the FNM, and fight the next election was indeed welcome news.

Welcome news because the whole future of this country hangs in the balance and cannot at this point in its development be entrusted to inexperienced leadership.

Instead of jockeying for lofty positions within the party, FNM MP's have a duty to put their personal aspirations aside and concentrate on what the people sent them to parliament for -- and for which they are being paid. They have a duty to protect the interests of their constituents and at the same time to learn the workings of government. This is no job for political neophytes.

It has always baffled us that the only field that requires no special training is that of the politician. And yet it is the politician -- especially the uneducated ones -- who presume to make so many important decisions for a nation. They are usually the ones making the most noise and jumping to their feet talking bombastic nonsense to catch the attention of their grassroots base.

There are reports that there has been much political jostling behind the scenes in both parties about the future of their leaders. Aspirants are upsetting daily business as they campaign for positions. In the PLP Mr Christie has made it clear that he will lead his party in the 2012 election. However, he has left the door ajar suggesting that he might not serve out a full term if elected, but would step aside for his successor. Fortunately, Mr Ingraham has stated his position clearly -- as is his custom -- saying that he will not only carry on, but if elected will take his job to full term. This will leave his party free to concentrate on the people -- if elected -- for another five years past 2012. And this is what the country needs at this critical time in its history -- government without distractions.

As a matter of fact, the PLP seem not to have accepted their 2007 defeat at the polls, but have continued their electioneering almost on a daily basis. With problems more pressing -- jobs, crime, an uncertain future -- Bahamians are growing tired of their pin-pricks.

Why, for example, would Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell, who had much to say on the Prime Minister's recent visit to China, especially about the Baha Mar deal, go out of his way to try to make the Bahamian people believe that Mr Ingraham had had no meeting with the Chinese Prime Minister while in China?

Mr Mitchell - one MP who knows his way around the web - should have known that on November 1, the same photograph that is published on today's front page with Mr Ingraham and Premier Wen Jiabao shaking hands was also on the web -- and is still on the web. With the photograph is a short article that said that "Chinese Premier Wen Jaibao met with his Bahamian counterpart, Hubert Ingraham on Sunday (Oct. 31)." And the article continued: "Hailing the sound political foundation of their bilateral relations, Wen said China would like to help the Bahamas improve its ability for self-development and deepen cooperation in infrastructure, finance, tourism, agriculture and new energy, among others. The Chinese Premier also called for both sides to step up cultural exchanges and safeguard common interests in addressing climate change and other challenges." There was more to the article of what Mr Ingraham said, but this is sufficient to prove that when Mr Mitchell told the Bahamian people that the two did not meet, he was telling a great big whopper! And to confirm the authenticity of the meeting- if more confirmation is needed - the photo and article were released by China's Xinhua news agency.

Mr Mitchell should remember that when you are caught out in the small ones, no one believes you when you tell the truth on the big ones. And for good measure we suggest that he recall the story of the boy who cried wolf once too often. It's a children's story, the moral of the tale being that what happened to the boy is what "happens to people who lie: even when they tell the truth no one believes them."

It is a little moral tale for children that we suggest every politician should keep in his hip pocket for reference -- especially when he gets carried away on the political podium.

As we were writing this article on Mr Ingraham being the right man with the experience, contacts and so much unfinished business yet to complete for the country that we were pleased he had decided to carry on as party leader, the release arrived in our newsroom about Mr Mitchell's false statement (see front page). It was a temptation that we couldn't resist and so we detoured from our subject and fell for the distraction.

November 16, 2010

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Ban foreign money from Bahamian elections

Ban foreign money from elections
thenassauguardian editorial


The Bahamas has been an independent country for 37 years. Majority rule came about in 1967. Since these two landmark events, our leaders have not seen the need to create rules surrounding election financing.

And we the people have not demanded that these rules be created.

Currently a slack system exists. Anyone with a bag of money can give that money to any politician or political party. And that’s that.

There is no public disclosure required. There is no accountability by politicians or political parties.

It has been rumored – and these rumors are likely true – that drug dealers, foreign investors seeking favors and foreign governments have given money to candidates and political parties in The Bahamas in the past.

Campaign finance reform has many components. We shall focus on three areas.

As a start to a process that should have begun a long time ago, The Bahamas should ban foreign money from its elections. It should also require public disclosure of donations over a certain level. And, a constitutionally independent electoral commission should be established to oversee the election process.

In democracies, only citizens can vote. Election contributions are powerful tools of influence. Money in elections is just as powerful as the process of voting, as it pays for advertising, which influences thought and behavior.

If foreigners cannot vote, they should not be allowed to sit on the sideline and influence who is elected in order to satisfy their own set of narrow interests.

According to the Federal Election Commission in the United States, a ban on foreign contributions to elections came about in 1966 in that country.

The second step to reform should be disclosure. In The Bahamas people give money to political parties. Then they get contracts when the party wins government. The bigger the donation, the bigger the contract received.

If a rule exists that makes public all donations over a certain amount, it would be harder for parties to simply share out state resources to friends.

A website should exist with the audited books of political parties, allowing citizens and the media to scrutinize who has given money to whom and what favors were received in return.

To oversee these initial reforms, it would be necessary to create a constitutional electoral commission.

If the rules governing the commission are not enshrined in the constitution, politicians will interfere with the body to ensure it cannot regulate the system.

The body should be led by a judge – someone with high integrity who has demonstrated impartiality.

The commission should be appointed by an extraordinary vote of Parliament – two-thirds or more – and it should be comprised of other similarly impartial people.

Additionally, an automatic funding mechanism should be set up to ensure the commission is adequately funded. Otherwise, the parties would ensure the commission does not have enough money to carry out its mandate.

These few steps are a mere beginning to campaign finance reform in The Bahamas. Being allowed to vote is only a small part of the democratic process. It is necessary to put these reforms in place so governments are accountable to all the people once elected, rather than the few who fund them.

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Tommy Turnquest says He Does Not Consider Hubert Ingraham to be a Threat to His Leadership of the Free National Movement (FNM)

Turnquest: Ingraham No Threat

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

10/05/2004

Free National Movement Leader Tommy Turnquest said on the Love 97 Radio Programme 'Jones and Company' Sunday that former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is no threat to him.

While addressing a group of administrative professions in Freeport, Grand Bahama last month, Mr. Ingraham referred to his departure from frontline politics as a "hiatus" and said it could stay that way as long as those who are now in office advance The Bahamas and its people.

Mr. Turnquest said, "I did not consider it to be a threat against me.  I do not consider Mr. Ingraham to be a threat to my leadership.  Mr. Ingraham is a former leader, a former prime minister.  He remains a sitting MP as an FNM MP in our parliament.

"He is very supportive of me and my leadership and I don't in the slightest way feel threatened by him or by his remarks.  He said that people said when I was prime minister that I talked too much and I didn't listen enough.  Now they're saying I'm not saying enough, perhaps I'll get it right one day."

Mr. Turnquest said a lot of people try to pit him against Mr. Ingraham, but he said, "I'm not going there".

"I'm comfortable with my leadership, I'm comfortable with his position," he added.  "There are persons in the FNM who have tried to get Mr. Ingraham to come back.  I believe that those persons are not prepared to work as hard as we have to work in order for us to gain the government.

"They see Mr. Ingraham as a person who did it before and feel that if he came back we would just automatically win.  Well, that's not going to happen.

When asked by the show's host, Wendall Jones, whether Mr. Ingraham was a cloud over his leadership, Mr. Turnquest said, "Mr. Ingraham is a very dominating personality in terms of Bahamian politics.  Lots of persons either love him or hate him, but Mr. Ingraham in my view, and I believe in the view of the majority of FNM's, will not become leader of the FNM again."

Mr. Jones then asked, "Wouldn't it be better for you as leader of the FNM for him to retire from frontline politics and give you advice rather than being, as some people say, meddlesome?"

Mr. Turnquest responded, "I don't consider Mr. Ingraham meddlesome in my leadership.  Some people believe that Mr. Ingraham is going to come back or wants to come back as leader of the FNM and prime minister of The Bahamas.  I do not share that view.  I believe that Mr. Ingraham has a passion for the political scene in The Bahamas.  He's in the parliament.

"Mr. Ingraham didn't want to run in the last election in North Abaco, but he ran and won his seat and thankfully so...I'm not sure that we can win a bye election in North Abaco at this time and until I'm sure about that, I don't see any reason to ask Mr. Ingraham to step down."

He added, "Mr. Ingraham serves a very useful purpose for me being in the House of Assembly and the House of Assembly is where the action is.  I do not have a seat in the House of Assembly."

Mr. Jones then asked, "Aren't you upstaged by his presence?"

"I don't feel upstaged," Mr. Turnquest responded.  "I am comfortable as the leader of the FNM."

When asked whether Mr. Ingraham was more responsible that any other politician in the FNM for the defeat of the party in the last general elections, the FNM leader said Mr. Ingraham has to accept a degree of responsibility for the FNM defeat.

But he said, "I believe that the blame game as to who is responsible for us losing is not important in terms of us moving forward.

"I have now done an analysis in terms of the reasons as to why we have lost.  I use that analysis now as the basis of my strategy of us winning the next election and so I don't intend to make or let the FNM make the same mistakes we made in the election campaign of 2002...in fact, I intend to have learnt sufficiently from those mistakes and from any successes we may have had in order for the FNM to be successful in the next general elections."

He then reiterated that he does not feel undermined by Mr. Ingraham.

Prime Minister Perry Christie, who was a guest on the same show a week earlier, was also asked to respond to comments made by Mr. Ingraham in Grand Bahama.

He said, "One of the interesting and intriguing questions for The Bahamas will be whether Hubert Ingraham and a Perry Christie representing both sides of the political spectrum will square up against each other and quite frankly to the real politician in both of us, it is more than intriguing.

"It's one of those things that you have become very curious over.  I don't know though whether that is something that is real for Mr. Ingraham.  He indicated to the country that he wanted to do two terms.  He had two terms.  He's in retirement now and it takes a major set of facts to converge for him, I think, to make a decision to move forward.  But that's neither here nor there, that's an FNM problem."

The prime minister then added, "I quite frankly do not believe and I cannot anticipate from my point of view that the FNM will beat my party in the next election even though we're two and a half years away at least from a general election.

"My job is to ensure that my party complies with its programme that it presented to the Bahamian people and remain relevant to the Bahamian people and I have to be satisfied that if we do those things that we would win, no matter who is the leader of the other side." 

New PLP Senator Chosen to Replace Edison Key

Edison Key, who resigned from the upper chamber months ago - criticized Prime Minister Perry Christie for "poor leadership" and "lack of direction." 

PM Chooses New Senator

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

03/05/2004

 

 

Prime Minister Perry Christie says he has chosen a new senator to replace Edison Key, who resigned from the upper chamber months ago, criticizing the nation's leader for "poor leadership" and "lack of direction."

Mr. Christie made the revelation while a guest on the Radio Love 97 Programme "Jones and Company" Sunday, on a day when the party observed the second anniversary since winning the government in 1992.

But the prime minister did not reveal his choice to fill the seat left vacant in the upper chamber.

"I've made a decision on it," said Mr. Christie, who was responding to a question asked by the show's host, Wendall Jones.  "I can assure you…the announcement will come shortly."

Mr. Key said he resigned on January 10, but the prime minister said he did not become aware of the so-called resignation until he received Mr. Key's letter more than five weeks later after the Journal made public the Abaco senator's surprising move.

Mr. Christie said he did not rush to replace Mr. Key because the former senator's absence from the senate did not create any disruptions or interruptions.

"I have the luxury of also deciding whether or not I make another major decision which will impact the development of this country with respect to the senate as well," he said, although not going into further details.

The senate has met several times since Mr. Key's resignation, dealing with several key pieces of proposed legislation.

When he spoke with the Journal in mid February about his resignation, Mr. Key said he thought the senate was useless.  But a number of his former colleagues have disagreed with him.

Opposition senators, meanwhile, including Free National Movement Leader Tommy Turnquest, have criticized Mr. Christie's delay in appointing a senator.  Mr. Turnquest said the delay was indicative of the way the Christie Administration operates.

On Sunday, Mr. Christie said, "Please forgive me. I take full responsibility for the delay."

The welfare and betterment of The Bahamas remain my obsession - my only obsession, says former Prime Minister, Hubert Ingraham

Will Hubert Ingraham return?

WHEN INGRAHAM SPEAKS PEOPLE LISTEN

STRAIGHT UP TALK

APRIL 29^TH, 2004

“I conclude by saying that notwithstanding my hiatus from active politics, I have no less interest nor concern for Freeport, Grand Bahama, for Abaco, New Providence or any other island in our country, than I did when I was in office as Prime Minister.  The welfare and betterment of The Bahamas remains my obsession, my only obsession.  And so I say, so long as those who are in, advance The Bahamas and all its people, people like me, who are out, will be comfortable with our station in life.  I say no more today.”

With those few parting words during his remarks at the recent Grand Bahama Association of Administrative Professionals, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham ignited debate about a possible return to the leadership of the FNM.  Indeed, one of the most intriguing questions in this country today is: Will Ingraham return?

Like him or not, Mr. Ingraham’s political presence in our society is undeniable.  Perhaps only Sir Lynden commanded a more imposing presence.  The Right Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham is a gifted leader and an astute politician.  Creating intrigue about himself comes easy.  What he wanted to say in Freeport he said and what he wanted to achieve he achieved.  He wanted people to hear what he said and they did.  He knew people would talk about what he said and they are.  There are many politicians in our country, high and low, who covet such a skill.

Some leaders are merely shooting the breeze, hoping that someone would help them deliver.  That has not been true of Hubert Ingraham, he was a doer, an achiever.  He not only “says what he means and means what he said”, he knows what he wants to achieve and focuses on getting it done.  This is a rare quality in Bahamian political leaders these days.

Asked about Mr. Ingraham’s remarks, Sen. The Hon. Tommy Turnquest, leader of the FNM, said that he was comfortable with Mr. Ingraham as his predecessor, a sitting MP and a retired Prime Minister.  Interesting!  This much is certain, Sen. Turnquest ought to have no worries about anyone contesting for his position in the party; indeed he should expect and welcome it.  Only a stagnant organization lacks multiple contenders for its top post.

Additionally, Sen. Turnquest, as he rightly pointed out, must remain focused on his agenda, which is to imbue the confidence of those he leads and those he seeks to lead.  Succeed or fail at this, he has no other charge.  In the end, the arbiters of his faith will not be his contenders but those to whom he makes his case for leadership.

Interestingly, Prime Minister The Right Hon. Perry Christie has not commented on Mr. Ingraham’s remarks on this occasion as he did on the last occasion Mr. Ingraham spoke in Freeport.  Perhaps the PM wants to let sleeping dogs lie.

Don’t be mistaken, however, PM Christie hears every word Mr. Ingraham says publicly - perhaps even some of what he says privately.  And he takes them all seriously!  The message to PM Christie from Mr. Ingraham was clear, “Be productive and work for all the people and I will have no motivation to come after you.”  For a competent leader, this would be a small challenge.  However, given Mr. Christie’s performance to date, as assessed by many Bahamians, Mr. Ingraham might just be brushing off his political hat for an imminent return.

Frankly, this columnist does not believe that Mr. Ingraham wants to return to leadership.  However, if the circumstances are mitigating enough he could be persuaded to do so.  Who should worry about this?  Not anyone with true leadership ability because if they cannot persuade others to choose them above Mr. Ingraham, they may not be the best person to lead.  After all the leader is the one people choose to follow and not the one they have to follow because there is no one else.

Are there other people in this nation, in the FNM capable of leading, as Mr. Ingraham did?  Yes.  However, they must make that case to the people who matter, even if they must do so in a head on contest with Mr. Ingraham.  Indeed a competitive but respectful bid for leadership between strong contenders breeds life into an organization and energizes its people.  Perhaps leaders in The Bahamas have become too accustomed to coronations.

It is no wonder that so many of them come to expect, yea even demand unbridled submission to their will.  Leaders should contend for and continue to justify their leadership.  This challenges them to be productive and accountable, both necessary for effective service to people.

WHEN THE PM IS FRUSTRATED HE INSULTS HIS PEOPLE

I would not refer to the Prime Minister as a silly man.  That would be rude and arrogant.  By the same token, Prime Minister Christie should not refer to his people or their thoughts as “silly”, whether he accepts them as legitimate or not.  Frankly, PM Christie’s remarks in this regard seem rather arrogant.  Either this or they are a sign of immense frustration, perhaps even overwhelming pressure.

The Christie administration is not a “do nothing government”.  Rather, it is more of a do nothing new, fresh, impacting or promised government.  And, it is a do things that are unflattering for a government to do, such as renting foreign bleachers for Junkanoo, allowing Korean Boats to enter the country under scandalous circumstances, so mistreating one of its own senior senators that he was forced to resign and leave the party, allowing a cabinet minister to rent from a government agency under a charge of conflict of interest, producing embarrassment for the country with the poor handling of the Haitian crisis situation, allowing a shameful feud at BAIC involving senior members of the government, allowing a sitting MP to come into utter disrepute through a declaration of bankruptcy by the courts, causing a major investor to pull out of a proposal due to indecisiveness, and the list goes on.

It must be terribly frustrating for the Prime Minister to have promised the world to Bahamians and to deliver, if anything, a village, at least as far as many Bahamians are concerned.  It must be even more frustrating that his supporters are criticizing him as harshly as his detractors.  If he were wise, PM Christie would avoid being defensive and insulting, referring to his own people as “silly” and their concerns as “silly distractions”.  If he were wise, he would listen and make prudent changes in the way he does things.  After all, the final arbiters of his success as leader are the people.  Public relations will not help him if what he needs to do is change, especially if rather than change he resorts to denigrating those he serves and who express concerns about the way he is serving.  This is a sign of weak leadership.

The fact is that the PM’s critics come in all shapes, colours, sizes, creed, ethnicities, nationalities, political persuasions and socio-economic backgrounds.  Of course, the PM knows this; this is why he and his party have launched a public relations campaign to tell people what they believe they have done.  If they thought that only opposition members were criticizing them, they would see no need to do this.  However, many PLP supporters are as adamant as persons opposite that the Christie administration has not performed up to par.  To change this, the administration must change, either change itself or be changed.  Period!