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

The voice of the people

By Philip C. Galanis

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

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

A macro-analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons learned

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

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

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

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

Sore losers

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

 

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

May 14, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Bahamian electorate ought to be mindful of the following words of President Thomas Jefferson: ...“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt ...We must make our election between economy and liberty ...or profusion and servitude”

Economic and fiscal prudence: Ingraham vs. Christie

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

There is ongoing debate on the leadership attributes of the prime minister and leader of the Free National Movement (FNM), Hubert A. Ingraham, and the leader of the official opposition and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), Perry G. Christie.  Leadership was the dominant theme of the FNM’s 2007 campaign and it is not surprising that the FNM has adopted the same modus operandi for its 2012 campaign.

The general position of the 21st century Bahamian electorate is one that rejects a leadership campaign in favor of a campaign that promotes plans to create jobs, reduce crime, address the immigration debacle and place the country on the path to economic prosperity.

Against this backdrop, it is imperative to state that a leader will be judged by and for successive generations based on his/her ability to, among other things, manage the economy in a manner that balances economic prudence, socio-economic expectations and infrastructural development.  A review of the budget communications for fiscal years 2002-2012 and comparative analysis of the stewardship of our economy by the Christie and Ingraham administrations is important as we go into the 2012 general election.

Christie administration (2002–2007)

Upon assuming office in May 2002 following a landslide victory at the polls, the Christie administration was faced with multiple challenges.  In the aftermath of two consecutive Ingraham-led terms from 1992-2002, The Bahamas was in recovery mode following a blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force and the backlash of the 9/11 terrorists attacks in the United States which had weakened our main industries of tourism and financial services.

These realities coupled with a burgeoning national debt in excess of $2.1 billion, a debt-to-GDP ratio of 37 percent and a growing deficit of 3.7 percent, would ultimately limit the Christie administration’s ability to implement many of its proposed policies and programs, least among them National Health Insurance.  The administration would proceed to execute austere measures and engineer an aggressive economic policy to improve the economy of the country and maintain deficit levels.

At the onset, the Christie administration recalled a US$125 million loan incurred by the previous Ingraham-led administration that had a four-year term and imposed heavy servicing costs.  As a result, a US$200 million bond attracting a lower interest rate and extending the life of the loan was issued.

Over its five-year period in office, the administration borrowed approximately $640 million to meet is annual budget requirements and aid in its revenue shortfall.  The administration invested in social programs, such as urban renewal, carried out what is arguably the most ambitious housing program in Bahamian history with the building of more than 1,400 homes and allocated funds to the consistent repatriation of illegal immigrants.  Further, the administration chose not to increase taxes, thereby saving Bahamians additional hardship in a depressed economy and implemented austere measures in budget allocations to ministries.

This policy decision as expected, negatively impacted government revenue and curbed expenditure.  However, the administration turned the economy around by securing multiple anchor projects for improvements in infrastructure and job opportunities resulting in an increase in foreign direct investments (FDI) of approximately $240 million in 2002 to an excess of $880 million in 2007.

This enabled The Bahamas under the Christie administration to increase external reserves to a record in excess of $690 million from $370 million in 2002.  Unemployment figures fell from 9.1 percent in 2002 to 7.9 percent in 2007, accounting for approximately 20,000 jobs created.

Ultimately, the Christie administration was able to achieve social, economic and infrastructural development in challenging times that called for austerity.

Ingraham administration (2007–2012)

The Ingraham administration was greeted with multiple FDIs, a national debt of approximately $2.4 billion, a reduced deficit and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 35 percent when it took office in 2007.  In its Manifesto 2007 promise, the administration had committed to deficit reduction and hoped to achieve this feat and reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to a low of 30 percent by 2012.

Faced with favorable economic conditions and a projected growth rate of 4.5 percent, the Ingraham administration’s first and second budgets were generous.  Allocations to most ministries were increased significantly over and above allocations in previous fiscal years.  However, The Bahamas’ tourism and financial services industries would become negatively impacted by the global economic downturn.

Over the ensuing fiscal years, the Ingraham administration witnessed a decline in revenues and consequently relied upon the headroom it met when entering office to significantly increase its borrowing and make up for revenue shortfalls.  In addition, the administration carried out perhaps the most aggressive and controversial fiscal policy in Bahamian history.  Tax increases by the administration adversely impacted lower and middle income earners and Bahamian businesses.  Private schools, charitable and College of The Bahamas subsidies were reduced in an already depressed economy.

Confronted with reduced revenue and only remnants of FDIs negotiated by the Christie administration, the administration seemed to pay the price for its “Stop, Review and Cancel” policy for FDI projects left on the table by the Christie administration, which Standard & Poor’s noted affected investor confidence in The Bahamas.  The administration would later seek to address its revenue shortfall with the controversial sale of the state-owned telecommunications company, Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to British firm Cable & Wireless and the reduction of the prime and discount rates lowered the administration’s debt servicing cost.

The challenges faced by the Ingraham administration were great and as such required prudent fiscal and economic planning.  Caught off-guard by the global recession and with no real or robust economic policy, the Bahamian economy has suffered a great deal.  Unemployment levels have risen to more than 15 percent, foreclosures are at record levels and the government had oversight of more than $100 million in cost overruns for the road improvement project.  The national debt has doubled in excess of $4 billion, deficit levels exceed eight percent and the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 60 percent (more than the recommended rate of less than 40 percent).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, a review of both administrations’ performance in managing the economy suggests that the Ingraham administration lacked a plan to improve economic conditions in the country as evidenced by its reactionary fiscal policy.  The Christie administration, on the other hand, despite being faced with multiple challenges throughout its term charted a course that set The Bahamas on the road to economic recovery.

It is difficult to see how another Ingraham administration would differ from the current one being faced with the same challenge and appearing to wait on a slowly recovering United States economy.  It is fair to state that a similar strategy will be deployed.  The Christie-led PLP has indicated that it will adopt similar policies (as deployed between 2002 and 2007) to restore economic prosperity to The Bahamas if elected.

The Bahamian people ought to be mindful of the following words of President Thomas Jefferson: “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude”.

The facts do not lie and we must choose economy and liberty over profusion and servitude.  The choice is ours to make.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed to: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw

Apr 19, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...five years after the May 02, 2007 general election, Bahamians face a new round with a decisive man at the top... It is now up to the electorate to decide whether they are going to entrust their future to a leader of indecision, or one of decision

FNM and PLP prepare for an election

tribune242 editorial


ON MONDAY, Prime Minister Ingraham announced the appointment of the Constituencies (Boundaries) Commission, which is expected to make its recommendations to Parliament by the end of this year with voters' cards ready for issue by early in the New Year.

By October 7, 134,000 voters had already registered in the 41 electoral constituencies for the 2012 election. They are still registering. However, the Boundaries Commission now has sufficient numbers to study the shifts in population in the various constituencies, and make recommendations to government on how the boundaries should be drawn for this election.

The Constitution provides for a minimum of 38 House members. Presently there are 41 (one extra seat added by the PLP in 2007), and so, if the population shifts warrant it, at least three constituencies can be eliminated and merged.

What a difference five years can make with a decisive prime minister at the helm.

At this time five years ago, then Prime Minister Perry Christie was still dithering. He had not yet announced the close of the register, because of the poor turnout of citizens. By November 2006 just over 63,000 voters had registered in New Providence out of a projected 120,000 voters.

According to Mr Christie, he could not close the register because Bahamians were not registering fast enough, which resulted in him not being able to appoint a Boundaries Commission to decide electoral boundaries.

On March 22, 2007 Mr Christie said that there were compelling reasons why the work of the commission had to be delayed, which had nothing to do with inaction by the commission or the government.

"Instead," he said, "the delay, regrettably as it was, was the direct result of the very slow process of Bahamians registering to vote."

By comparison, Mr Ingraham announced this week that by the first week in January 2012 the Parliamentary Registration Department is expected to start the distribution of voters' cards. By the same time five years ago Mr Christie was still begging Bahamians to register so that the Commission could make a decision on the boundaries.

Apparently, Mr Christie refused to recognise that many Bahamians are very much like him -- slow to decide and even slower to act. Although Mr Christie was advised to announce a closure date early in 2006 for the 2007 election -- as Mr Ingraham had done earlier this year for the 2012 election -- he refused to do so. He was told that the only way to get Bahamians to move was to fix a date -- the floodgates would open, and registration offices would be filled. This seemed to take an extra long time for Mr Christie to compute and so three months before the 2007 election the Boundaries Commissioners were still floundering -- still nothing to report. It was only on the morning of March 19, 2007 - two months before the election - that Mr Christie presented the House with the Boundaries report.

It did not take a genius to predict that the 2007 election was going to be one of confusion. Up to that point political candidates were not even certain of their districts. First Bahamians were blamed because they were too slow to register. And naturally at the end of the day, someone else had to be blamed for the inevitable confusion that was to follow when voting did start. Naturally, the poor Parliamentary Commissioner, through no fault of his own, had to be the fall guy for the indecision at the top.

Here it was March 19, 2007 with Mr Christie standing before the House with the Boundaries Commissions report to be presented. One of the Commissioner's signatures was missing -- that of Brent Symonette, the only Opposition member on the committee. Mr Symonette had refused to sign because the PLP members had shunted him aside, treating his opinion with complete contempt. This will not happen this year as Mr Symonette, again appointed to the Commission, is one of the two members representing the government.

At this point in 2007, the Constitution was closing in on Mr Christie. If he didn't do his famous two-step shuffle quickly, on May 22 Parliament would automatically dissolve itself without him.

It was a huffing and a puffing to the finish line, which was eventually announced for May 2. The results were inevitable - the FNM won 23 of the 41 seats with the PLP winning the other 18. And now five years later Bahamians face a new election with a decisive man at the top. It is now up to the electorate to decide whether they are going to entrust their future to a leader of indecision, or one of decision.

It is only a matter of months before Bahamians are called upon to make that decision.

October 12, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

What does the Bahamian electorate really think of Perry Christie? ... Is he more popular and more respected than Hubert Ingraham? ... Than Bran McCartney?

Christie’s keys to success (Pt. 1)

By Dr. Ian Strachan

Logic would seem to dictate that in this long season of discontent, in this season of record unemployment, in this season of record bloodshed, in this interminable season of frustrating, confusing, infuriating “road works”, in this season of collapse for many homegrown businesses, in this time of rising fuel and food prices, logic would seem to dictate that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), under Perry Gladstone Christie, will be swept into office and the Free National Movement (FNM) will be ingloriously swept out.

Logic would seem to dictate that the FNM will be hard pressed to secure seats in New Providence other than those held by Brent Symonette, Dr. Hubert Minnis and Loretta Butler-Turner.

But there are some problems with this assessment.  There are some very big questions looming like storm clouds over the PLP.  The first is whether enough people feel comfortable returning Perry Christie to power.  The second is whether the PLP has changed sufficiently or has a strong enough message to persuade crucial swing voters that the PLP is still the best alternative, despite how they feel about Leslie Miller, Bradley Roberts, Picewell Forbes, V. Alfred Gray, Shane Gibson, Allyson Maynard-Gibson and company.

It might seem reasonable to assume that the PLP hasn’t really lost much of its base since 2007.  In fact, that base should have grown over the last four years given all the suffering and fear in the country.  But the fact is, most Bahamians want to see a change in leadership in both established political parties, and they’re not going to get it.  So interest in this election might be lower than normal.  Even some traditional PLPs may register but stay away on election day.

It’s also reasonable to assume that some of the swing vote that was attracted to the National Democratic Party’s “Bahamians-first” message might gravitate toward the PLP, now that Dr. Andre Rollins and Renward Wells have joined and the NDP has fizzled.  Their inclusion bodes well for Christie, particularly if they both get nominations.  They will appeal to young change-minded voters.

But what do people really think of Perry Christie?  Is he more popular and more respected than Hubert Ingraham?  Than Bran McCartney?  Without the national affection and regard felt for former PLP deputy leader Cynthia ‘Mother’ Pratt to buoy him, can Christie gain the confidence and trust of the majority of voters?  The Christian community (which is mostly Baptist and Pentecostal) and the working poor identified strongly with ‘Mother’ Pratt. Where will the PLP get that kind of credibility from now?  Is Deputy Leader Brave Davis a help or a hindrance?  What about Chairman Bradley Roberts?  Should Christie have persuaded Dr. Bernard Nottage, a man highly regarded by swing voters and Bahamians generally, to go for deputyship?  Will the ghost of Lynden Pindling or the dignity and grace of Dame Marguerite be enough this time around?

Christie’s Achilles’ heel is the perception that he is a less decisive and results oriented, and a less effective manager than Ingraham.  This is a big sticking point for the swing vote and the professional class.  But Christie is not without advantages in this fight.  For one, he is the warmer of the two men in interviews and more of an inspirational leader than Ingraham.  The people may be tired of Ingraham’s short, dry-eyed approach and may want someone they perceive as more sympathetic and approachable at the helm.

Christie also has the luxury of sitting back and poking holes in all the FNM’s efforts to address the troubled justice and educational systems and the sputtering economy.  Christie knows most voters have short memories and don’t care about what the PLP did or didn’t do five to 10 years ago.  This is why he can say he supports hanging and not get laughed out of town.

Christie also has at his disposal the collective disenchantment, anger and fear that permeates the society.  He is likely to milk this for all it’s worth and it’s worth a lot.  Many of the angry and disenchanted will abstain from voting or vote DNA, but at least they won’t vote FNM.   If the PLP can get its base out to the polls and woo even half or a third of the angry voters out there, it stands a good chance of coming out on top--even if “on top” means heading a minority or coalition government.

Sep 05, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International