The Tribune

By LARRY SMITH

“It’s better to have a debate about where we are going, because frankly whoever is the leader, unless the direction is right, I’m afraid the rest won’t be right.” -

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, 2015

Tony Blair was, of course, talking about the current leadership contest in the British Labour Party, which is in a deep funk after losing two consecutive general elections since he resigned as Prime Minister in 2007 after 10 years in office.

But he could just as easily have been talking about the Bahamas, where we have yet to see this kind of debate play out for either the Free National Movement (FNM), which suffered its own big loss at the polls three years ago, or the governing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), which was turfed out after a single term in 2007.

We assume that FNM insiders have painstakingly analysed their 2012 loss. But my perception, as a relatively detached observer, is that there has been almost no public debate on the way forward for the opposition since Dr Hubert Minnis was hurriedly named leader right after the election debacle.

The PLP is in the fortunate position of being able to implement its own way forward for the time being – whether you like it or not. But most observers agree that Perry Christie’s 18-year reign as leader will soon sputter to an end one way or another. Yet there is little debate about that party’s future as well.

In Britain, four candidates are vying to become Labour Party leader: shadow health minister Liz Kendall is the centre-right contender; former health secretary Andy Burnham has strong union ties but lost a leadership bid in 2010; shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper is a policy wonk married to another senior Labour politico, Ed Balls, who lost his seat in May; and Jeremy Corbyn is a veteran angry leftist who some say now has the upper hand.

For the present, former solicitor-general Harriet Harman is acting as leader. But she will step down once one of the four candidates is elected by party members and registered supporters over the next several weeks. Balloting begins in mid-August and the result will be announced at a party conference on September 12.

Some have argued that Labour should continue with a caretaker leader while staging an in-depth debate about the future and how the party can rebuild support. But, as Yvette Cooper said recently, “The key is to have the energy and the sense of vision and direction, while having this wide-ranging debate. It cannot be a lethargic drift for months or years before we get our mojo back.”

This is the situation in which the FNM finds itself today. Many thought of Minnis (one of the few ministers left standing in 2012) as an interim leader who would hold things together while a despondent party licked its wounds. As former education minister Desmond Bannister said at the time: “The country supports him for his ability to bring people together”.

But despite his political inexperience and lack of speaking skills, Minnis has shown a stubborn determination to hold onto the leadership position as the party gears up to fight the next general election – in the face of constant complaints from those who want a more aggressive opposition.

A technocrat who clearly disdains the cut and thrust of partisan politics, Minnis has often called for an end to the tribalism and victimisation which plagues our society. And his cultivation of an underdog image has helped erase the vitriol which once greeted any mention of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and the FNM in the public arena.

But critics point out that Minnis has no capacity to “go for the jugular” in political skirmishing – either within or outside Parliament. And his views on key issues appear detached and unfocused. This apparent disinterest has greatly diminished the party’s role as an effective opposition force.

The most favourable interpretation is that Minnis seeks to move beyond “tiresome modes of past thinking” towards a new Bahamas based on merit, with more transparent and accountable governance. As he says: “The Christie government has entered into agreements with huge national implications, without public consultation. I will change that!”

But the big question is, how do we arrive at that point? Does Minnis have the political skill first to achieve office, and then the leadership skill to bend the arc of history and push through the necessary reforms? Both Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham proved able to do these things in their time, and both were chosen by their colleagues because they were considered up to the task.

Although his criticism of the government usually falls dismally flat, Minnis has focused lately on positive proposals, such as the transformation of impoverished Over-the-Hill areas. Minnis’ proposal for tax-free zones is designed to appeal to grassroots voters in the poor neighbourhoods where he grew up, but it is uncertain whether he will ever be in a position to implement those proposals.

After 2012, public discussion of the FNM’s vision for the future and the political strategies needed to get there has been desultory. Brainstorming may have taken place behind closed doors, but more public discussion is needed. Unfortunately, Bahamian political parties usually reserve this sort of thing for a platform announcement – which recycles the previous election’s advertising messages.

In Britain, Tony Blair recently made a tough public speech about the future of the Labour Party. He said a shift to the left after Labour’s crushing defeat last May would be to treat voters as if they were stupid: “We lost in 2010 because we stepped somewhat from that modernising platform. We lost in 2015 when we stepped even further away from it and lost even worse. We can win again next time. But only if our comfort zone is the future and our values are our guide and not a distraction.”

When has former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham or any other senior leader explored the causes and ramifications of the FNM’s loss in 2012, or the PLP’s loss in 2007, other than in brief, off-the-cuff, self-serving comments? When have they argued for an overhaul of political vision? When have they examined the lynchpin issues of our time – education and social mobility, crime and immigration, corruption and accountability?

Perry Christie is a different kettle of fish. In early days he was considered a relative lightweight in the PLP firmament, until he stood up with Ingraham against widespread drug lord corruption in the 1980s. But unlike Ingraham, he could not contemplate a permanent rupture with the PLP and eventually rejoined the Cabinet, becoming party leader after Pindling resigned in 1997.

Christie has exceptional speaking skills, but clearly lacks the leadership skills needed to manage serious reform. He is good at campaigning and announcing things, but his two administrations have been incoherent and marred by scandal. Christie has also been unable to move the PLP away from its baser tendencies, if indeed he ever wanted to. Both his party and his government are controlled by aging apparatchiks from the Pindling years.

This is despite the fact that Christie had promised to fashion a new PLP when he first became Prime Minister in 2002. ”We must lead by example,” he said then. “There will be no victimisation of anyone. We must conduct ourselves in government according to an uncompromising code of complete integrity and transparency. I want to create a fully functioning democracy and forge a new partnership with private enterprise.”

The PLP often acts as if it is the natural party of government, relying on its historical achievements. But that is no longer the case. It won the last election on a plurality – collecting fewer votes than the combined FNM and Democratic National Alliance. And it was rejected in 2007 despite a booming economy. Three years into the current term, and it is clear that Christie and the PLP have lost significant support and the government is lurching from one crisis to another.

Now in his 70s and facing potential health issues, Christie still has the daunting task of managing the PLP’s leadership transition – something which Hubert Ingraham signally failed to do for the FNM in the 1990s. The eventual solution was for Ingraham to quit politics altogether in 2012. In the PLP’s earlier case, Pindling resigned after his 1997 defeat (his second) and then engineered Christie’s accession, which caused a party rupture.

The most likely candidate to replace Christie as PLP leader is his former law partner Philip Davis, who currently holds the number two spot in the government and appears to be the ultimate backroom deal-maker, although he lacks speaking skills. It is incontestable that both Davis and Minnis (Mr Mumble and Dr Malaprop) would be interminably boring at political rallies, which are the bread and circuses of Bahamian elections.

In typical narcissistic fashion, Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell has nominated himself for leader if Christie should step down. But a politician who is perpetually angry, who threatens critics and who hurls invective at all and sundry is unlikely to capture the imagination of uncommitted voters, even if he could overcome his other issues.

During both of his terms in office, Christie has talked excitedly about his “transformative governance”, but it is difficult to say what that actually means. According to one joke on social media, “Christie’s greatest achievement has been his ability to continually push the envelope and bring the highly improbable into the realm of the possible. I hear it all the time … people constantly saying ‘I can’t believe he did that’.”

The recent collapse of the $3.5 billion Baha Mar resort project – which Christie set in motion during his first term – is the latest blow to his political legacy. But his real legacy will not be the grandiose projects he has promoted, or the social transformation he appears genuinely to want. Rather, it will be his presiding over the back-pedalling of Bahamian society.

Governance refers to the way we conduct public affairs, manage public resources, and protect civil rights. Transformative governance means that we are moving rapidly to achieve these goals transparently, under the rule of law and in a way that avoids abuse and corruption.

In his first term, Christie wasted a golden opportunity to recast the PLP. Despite all the brave talk, there was no attempt at reform, nor even self-examination. And in his second term the government has been steadily dismantling whatever small elements of transparency and accountability we have managed to accumulate over 40 years of independence.

As political strategist Steve Hilton advised the British Labour Party recently: “Our country is one of the most centralised in the world, with a shocking proportion of decisions that affect daily life taken by an insular ruling elite of politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats. At best, it can lead to stale thinking and shut out innovation. At worst, it breeds corruption.”

Hilton could easily have been talking about the Bahamas. Any political party that is not addressing inclusive and accountable governance, education and social mobility has forgotten what it exists for. Adopting the simple agenda of helping everyone ‘get on’ in life (rather than just a few insiders) is the answer to our dysfunctional politics.

What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com