The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune

I read with great interests the comments of a Founding Father of the Free National Movement, and former Member of Parliament, Maurice Moore, current Member of Parliament for Montagu Richard Lightbourn, a letter by Andrew Allen and one by WAL in the various dailies.

What I found interesting is that while Founding Father Maurice Moore might have overstated the point, engaged in hyperbole and perhaps, overly zealous, the reality is that the thrust of his argument or view is that the FNM has a Leader in the Hon Dr Hubert A Minnis who was only just re-elected to the post 12 months ago by a three-one margin and he ought to therefore be supported (you have a right to be heard and disagree but support your duly elected Leader) by persons who count themselves as FNMs.

Moreover, Dr Minnis continues to enjoy the vast majority support (as he received in Convention a year ago) of the Central Council of the party.

Further, by most accounts, he continues to enjoy the vast majority support of the Constituency Associations of the party.

While some, a small group in fact, disagrees with the Leader on any number of issues (as many of the same people disagreed with the Rt Hon Hubert A Ingraham on a lot of issues) they really desire and their aim is to replace him as Leader, plain and simple.

For some time now, a group of FNM Members of Parliament threatened the Leader with a letter, possibly writing a letter and submitting it to the Governor General thereby replacing him with another as Opposition Leader in the House of Assembly. Well, what is that? Is that not divisive? Does that not breed disunity in the organisation when the Leader enjoys the vast majority support in the Central Council of the party and amongst the rank-and file in the Constituency Associations? Who is really causing and bringing about this manufactured disunity, in order to complain about the very lack of unity?

Mr Ingraham always said that - “you win at the ballot box” - he never favoured taking election losses to court, challenging the verdict of the people. Well, the same can be said of those MPs who desire to strip Dr Minnis of the Leadership that was determined by the party’s delegates to the Convention last year. They ought not now, the four or five of them, try to achieve in a purely Parliamentary manoeuvre (the Court, so to speak) to achieve what they could not at Convention (the ballot box).

It is a very mischievous and cynical effort on the part of those so engaged and remember, they are, in fact, FNMs nonetheless.

One might recall the weekly column in one of the dailies immediately following last November’s Convention mentioning “a march of folly” – the agenda (to replace Dr Minnis, even in the immediate aftermath of a three-one margin of victory) continued and has been relentless ever since.

The real question is, who is attempting to manufacture and cause disunity in the party, while cleverly claiming that they are only seeking the FNM high ideals of freedom, democracy, the protection of dissenting voices and, of course, unity?

A REALIST FNM

Nassau,

November 19, 2015.