The Tribune

By Simon

After the Free National Movement (FNM) announced 17 candidates for the House of Assembly ahead of the upcoming general election, there was the usual ritual of criticisms, a number of which are frequently trotted out at election time.

Some critiques were on point. Others were the typical shallow, knee-jerk criticisms which do not account for the political realities of the contemporary Bahamas. It is intellectually sluggish and simplistic to assail the selection of candidates without noting the context from which they are chosen.

The hard reality is that it is difficult to find eligible and good candidates with the portfolio of qualities needed to serve in elected office.

Candidates reflect the broader society with our myriad strengths and tremendous limitations in populating politics, government, journalism, religious life, civil society, and union leadership with more adept talent.

The crisis in attracting quality leadership may be seen in the ever-declining quality of print and broadcast journalism, the decline in the quality of senior public officers, and the difficulty in attracting religious leaders with greater theological depth. We have a dearth of talented leaders across the board.

Moreover, many, including those who may fervently criticise proposed candidates, are rarely prepared to enter the political arena. Many of these critics lack the qualities to be good and eligible candidates.

Theodore Roosevelt bemoaned the constant critic who has never been involved in political life or government but who endlessly editorializes, comments on, and lambasts certain politicians, especially those for whom they have a personal vendetta:

“A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities—all these are marks, not as the possessor would feign to think, of superiority, but of weakness.”

While there is rightly public and media vetting and analysis of proposed candidates, we might pause to acknowledge the courage of those who do step forward and who will have their lives and that of their families diced and dissected, and in some instances, destroyed.

With politics as a spectator sport, many enjoy attacking those in the arena from their cloistered sidelines. We delight in gossiping about the foibles and failures of others despite our own deep failings and checkered pasts.

The PLP and the FNM will criticise candidates on the other side. This is a usual and necessary element of political battle. Those in the arena appreciate this as part of the process. Still, viciousness and certain other attacks should be shunned by all.

Given the mixed and sometimes poor quality of candidates the major parties have run in the past few elections, both parties might demonstrate more humility and a sense of irony when criticizing opposing candidate slates.

The PLP’s candidates at the last election were not exactly a Who’s Who of stellar talent, a good number of whom the party is now desperately trying to drop because of lackluster performance in government and in their constituencies.

Candidate selection is a messy and difficult process, especially depending on how a leader conducts the process. There are always those who feel jilted and who will publicly express their displeasure.

Some leaders have more adeptly run the selection process, while others sometimes leave behind a trail of unresolved ill feelings that boomerang over time.

With tabloids typically and gleefully looking for political conflict, there will be stories from disappointed prospects and branch officers. Still, it is curious, perplexing that the recent resignation of an FNM branch chairman would mystifyingly become a huge banner headline.

There are many proverbial moving parts to selecting and mounting a candidate team for a general election. Having more female candidates has always been a challenge, with many women afraid to come forward, fearing personal attacks on themselves and their families.

One always wants a mix of cabinet experience and new blood. The notion that someone who may have lost their seat at the last election should not run again is silly beyond measure.

Quite a number of politicians in our post-independence history, who lost a seat at an election, were reelected and made their contributions to national life.

To suggest that talented individuals who were part of a previous government that lost office should not run again is insipid and counter to the reality of most parliamentary democracies.

A party that would not rerun experienced individuals who may have lost their seat at the last election would look asinine and would be severely criticised for not utilising such talent. Alas, this is the nature of politics and some journalism: No matter what one does, reflexive criticism often follows.

Voters quite often reelect the very MPs and others they previously voted out. Earlier this year, Kamla Persad Bissessar’s United National Congress (UNC), won reelection in Trinidad and Tobago against the incumbent People’s National Movement (PNM), after having been previously “rejected” by the country.

One of those who helped formed the first majority rule government in The Bahamas, served in the public arena, experiencing the deprivations and difficulties of political life. Despite losing his seat at more than one election, he ran again on a number of occasions, eventually returning to the House.

He observes that some contemporary critics remind him of those, including some in the black middle class of the day, who refused to offer their talents and assistance to the movement for majority rule.

They refused to enter the arena to serve in party branches, to run for office, to help spread the message of change through the media of the day, to canvass voters, to help organize rallies, to hold house meetings, to raise funds, to serve on committees, to offer professional help, to register voters, to cook food for events.

Though they reaped the benefits of majority rule, many hedged their bets and remained on the sidelines endlessly criticizing and complaining. They considered themselves too “good” and pristine to soil themselves in the heat of political battle.

And he recalls the number of Bahamian professionals his party repeatedly attempted to recruit to run over the decades but who refused to do so.

As we continue to strive for improved leadership in every area of national life, including in politics, we should recognize those who have served well in parliament and who were committed to public service.

The first group of FNM candidates includes some good talent and others who should be encouraged to grow as leaders. The same will likely be true for the PLP. This does not negate a deeper problem in politics and in society that is not unique to The Bahamas: a need for better political talent and leadership.

The failures of political leadership and the quality of leaders is not singularly an internal failure of our political parties. It is also a collective failure of the body politic of which we are all a part. It is not enough to wag fingers. We might also look more closely in the mirror at ourselves.