The Tribune

FNM Commentary

By DARRON CASH

FNM National Deputy Chairman

WHAT is abundantly clear from the recent Board appointments by the PLP Administration, besides them being late, is that politicians are playing the dominant role on the Boards. 

This is a throwback to those heady days of the PLP when such appointments were part and parcel of a pervasive patronage system and system to lord it over the citizenry.

By having high level politicians lead most Boards, the PLP ensured that its political wishes and patronage was exacted with impunity. Very often, favour and fear dominated the work of Boards with the ultimate aim of keeping the PLP in power.

Prime Minister Christie returns to those days by his recent Board appointments.

Of the 20 most influential Boards, 17 or 85 per cent are chaired by either active parliamentarians or former parliamentarians. 

This stands in stark contrast to the Ingraham-appointed Boards in the last term when only six or 30 per cent of the same 20 Boards were led by parliamentarians or former parliamentarians. 

Of the 20 Boards, PM Christie and the PLP have appointed parliamentarians to head 12 or 60 per cent of them, six MPs and six senators. This stands again in stark contrast to the Ingraham-appointed Boards that had only five or 25 per cent sitting parliamentarians head them, two MPs and three senators.

Note should also be taken of the fact that the critical Central Bank Board has on it the spouse of a sitting cabinet minister.

One has to question what difficulties this can raise for the Bank’s Board in discussing matters related to the work of the Bank, given that it is suppose to be independent of the Government.  It is a known fact that the minister whose spouse sits on the Central Bank’s Board once applied to the Central Bank for a bank license and was refused.

Does this create any sensitivity for the spouse sitting on that Board especially regard being had to the nature of the Bank’s refusal of the application?  

It is also interesting to note that the same cabinet minister whose spouse is on the Central Bank Board has two brothers appointed to boards and her daughter; one family with four members on boards and a member in the cabinet of The Bahamas. 

It seems like a return of the “All-for-me Baby” politics. 

Were there no other Bahamians who could have been appointed to these boards to make their contributions and enjoy the benefit of serving their country? 

One expects that politics will play a role in the appointment of Boards but this return to political domination in the leadership of the Boards is a step backward in a 21st Century Bahamas and contradicts the Prime Minister’s claim of being a bridge to the future.

He is only a bridge to the future if we are going back to the future. It also contradicts the notion that there are many talented Bahamians who are not in Government who can serve in leadership on Boards of our nation. Apparently, allowing them to participate in the development of the nation is not as important as ensuring that politicians who were not appointed to a bloated cabinet can be appointed to important boards to keep them happy, at least all the politicians except Picewell Forbes, who will no doubt get something, if the trend of pleasing the political establishment holds.

The chart above compares the board appointments by the FNM and those of the PLP.