The Tribune

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

THE Free National Movement’s convention would be over by the time of today’s publication, but by all accounts it was shaping up to be a heated, highly contested affair. That said, regardless of who emerges from this internal showdown in the Official Opposition, the main question that now arises is whether the leadership team that emerges from the runoff will be the same leadership team that takes the FNM into the general election or will they—at a proposed follow-up convention—select another team to take them into battle with the governing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) in 2017?

One notes that the constitution of the FNM calls for a convention to be held every two years and high-level figures in the party have told me that they would wish to resolve the leadership issue—likely in Dr Hubert Minnis’ favour so that there is no further dispute or such a deep and patent rift between him and his deputy—so that they could see if the doctor will be able to pull the party together and rally the base without the added distraction of a deputy who is perceptibly disobliging or undermining him. By all accounts, the brass of the FNM stated that they will give Minnis some more time to demonstrate his leadership capabilities and if they feel that he faltered, they will demand that another convention is called in a year’s time.

I have held the view that Minnis was not given a fair chance from day one as he was scorned by FNMs, rabidly attacked and seemingly undermined and underestimated, with some senior FNMs seeing his “newness” to the political frontlines as a weak point, one that could be exploited.

Over time, I think that whilst he still has shortcomings—for example, even he admits that his speaking/pronunciation needs much improvement— he has managed to hold the FNM together, lead the charge to pay down more than 60 per cent of that party’s outstanding financial obligations, organised the party’s various associations in New Providence and the Family Islands and, generally, taken many licks along the way.

That said, going forward the FNM needs to seek to attract credible candidates to be standard bearers marching into the next general election, revamping and rebranding itself much like the PLP did in 2002 with their “Fresh Wind” mantra and here again in 2012 with their attempt to portray themselves as the party that was giving local politics a facelift by introducing and offering the electorate a “new generation of leaders.” Whilst the PLP has not given many of these new generation leaders key roles in the Cabinet—instead recycling many of those who had already served in certain positions—the FNM needs to take a page from their book in running young and vibrant candidates but better what the PLP did by including such individuals in the Cabinet (with significant ministries) and appointing them to other important posts within government.

Indeed, many of the senior past FNM candidates must be respected and used as advisers and seen as statesmen; however, for many who have run time and time again, they must realize that the time has come for them to move off the frontlines and allow a new generation of leaders to step forward. The public is demanding that this happens and one hopes that the FNM takes heed. Yes, I do realise that a future FNM team must feature personalities who have served before, however I believe that the vast majority of candidates in the upcoming general election should be new faces.

Moreover, the fact is that the FNM cannot win without the Democratic National Alliance and its supporters. That is simply the truth! Therefore, FNM leaders should immediately reach out to DNA leader Branville McCartney, deputy leader Chris Mortimer and other figures within the DNA with a view to resolving outstanding issues between the two opposition forces and in order to forge a merger where guarantees are made to the third party's top leadership (e.g. ministerial posts or seats) and both entities could become one unit under the more established FNM banner. Having formed 11 months prior to the general election, the DNA managed to attract more than 13,000 voters to that party. That is astounding when one considers the size of the electorate, the fact that this party had been in existence for less than a year and the fact that the main parties were established entities that clearly had a built-in machinery, had the resources and, quite honestly, attracted the top-tier candidates.

Of the more than 13,000 persons who supported the DNA in the last general election cycle, polls show that 70 per cent were disgruntled FNMs. If one was to go through nearly all of the constituencies where FNM candidates lost, one could easily see that if 70 per cent was deducted from the DNA candidate’s total tally, the FNM candidate would have won the seat and the FNM would have likely been the governing party today. For example, one look at the Elizabeth or Southern Shores constituencies would reveal that the FNM candidate would have won in both areas had they attained the 70 per cent, estimated by pollsters, of the total that the DNA candidates in both areas attained—and that’s just to name two areas. I invite political enthusiasts to take a look at the spreadsheet from the Parliamentary Registrar’s Department and then draw their own conclusions.

I think that the FNM further needs to appeal to young people. So, as it stands, persons at the College of the Bahamas and about to finish high school should be avidly sought after. Youngsters who are graduating high school today will be of voting age in two years, if not already. Both the Torchbearers and the top leadership would need to be more active in this regard!

In unifying the party, one would suggest that the FNM rallies its base by having mini-rallies and functions where the issues are discussed and supporters and would-be supporters can come and listen—a sort of speakers’ bureau. Following this convention, I think that FNMs should not only hear the chants and songs about “feeling the fire burning”, but they should also see and feel that fire in perceptible ways.

Moreover, all this talk about the PLP stealing FNM ideas if position papers are produced and released is pure foolishness. I think that the FNM must write and publish position papers on crime, the economy and economic reform, taxation, social welfare, Family Island development, law reform and many other topics. One believes that such papers would make the FNM’s position discernible to the voting public and credit that party with offering logical alternatives instead of merely opposing the government’s initiatives. As I have stated before, I would love to see the FNM or any other independent minded member of parliament—whether they be FNM or government backbencher—propose and advance Independent Member Bills, which would counter or add to any proposed legislation being advanced by the Executive. Win or lose, the public would be encouraged and understand that MPs are working in their interest, even if that means drafting a Bill that one knows would not pass simply because the Official Opposition or one member of the PLP’s backbench cannot muster the requisite numbers needed for its passage.

At the time of this writing, I’m keenly aware of what’s happening in Stapledon at the convention centre and I realize that candidates—and their surrogates—are stampeding across the floor and outside the hall, trying to gain last minute votes from delegates who have been flown in (by some candidates themselves), given accommodations and shown a good time.

Today, I’m willing to go on a limb and predict that the results would yield that Dr Hubert Minnis has retained his position as leader of the Free National Movement; Dr Duane Sands has been elected to be the new deputy leader of the party; and Michael Pintard has been elected chairman. I know that I have made such proclamation and told persons such as the managing editor of this paper that if my predictions fall short, that I will buy dinner for him at any restaurant of his choice. Other variations of bets have been accepted and/or proposed to various other parties......we shall see.

POLICE PROMOTIONS

I’m quite perplexed about the recent promotional exercise within the Royal Bahamas Police Force. Clearly, Commissioner of Police Ellison Greenslade’s authority is being usurped and, quite honestly, it is patent that many of the promotions were politically-based. The promotions—quite a number of which went to undeserving officers—is demonstrative of the notion that the good ole boys club is back in full effect!

Prima facie, political interference seems to have played a part in the promotions and countless police officers have complained to me that they felt that undeserving people were promoted while more deserving officers were taken off the list—and some of these complaints came from officers who were promoted, but noted that their deserving colleagues/partners were not.

I find it interesting that the police force is once again becoming top heavy, with the awkward re-introduction of ranks that were previously eliminated. What exactly is an ACTING Assistant Superintendent? What is an ACTING inspector?

The promotions seemingly amounted to an overrated awards ceremony where nearly everyone—particularly if they were supporters of the governing party—was thought of and given a piece of the action.

Whether we call it a realignment of the RBPF or whatever fancy term one conjures up, one knows that a disciplined, military-like organization such as the police force should not, under any circumstances, be subjected to out-and-out political meddling.

I would certainly impress upon the Commissioner to understand that he holds a constitutionally protected post and, whilst he could be frustrated by budgetary issues and other impediments the executive could put in his way, he must not allow the police force to be run by politicians or allow himself to be manipulated by politicians. The public requires and demands that of any and every officer of the Royal Bahamas Police Force, whether they be FNM, PLP, DNA or in between!