The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

I would be grateful if you would kindly allow me a few lines in your fine publication to express a few thoughts on a current matter of national interest.

The FNM finds itself in a conundrum of its own making in which there is no clear path to victory come 2017.

I think very few individuals would argue that the performance of the FNM since its 2012 defeat has given the impression that it is prepared or even wants to win the next general election. Its political conduct has been schizophrenic at best, and its message incoherent ramblings based on no fixed ideology or belief except that “if the PLP did it it is wrong”.

It is therefore not surprising that tensions and discontent would arise as the party continues to stumble along with no clear political direction which has thus evolved into a very open and sometimes testy conflict between its leading personalities. This is not a fight for the heart and soul of the FNM.

If we were to offer a defence of its current leader, however, we must remember that this leadership was thrust on him. On May 7, 2012, the thought never crossed his mind that one week later he would have become the leader of the FNM.

I am also sure that in his graduating class, no one would have been so prophetic as to predict his becoming a national political leader given his personality (one of a country doctor), his charisma (you be the judge), or his gravitas (???). Dr Minnis was propped up alongside Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, Sir Kendal Isaacs, and the Hon Hubert Ingraham and he paled in comparison.

This then is the leader (for better or worse) that the FNM is currently stuck with, and one of the horns of its present dilemma.

The second horn of its dilemma is the very nature of the organisation, where the Gold Standard FNM is someone who has never voted PLP and doesn’t like anyone or anything that is PLP. These are they whom Sir Etienne Dupuch referred to as the lunatic fringe of political parties. Their counterparts also make up a large part of the PLP.

The problem with this faction of the party is that they are not the reasoning part of the organisation. Facts are to be interpreted only in favour of the party, and they do not generally want to hear anything that is not in harmony with the party line.

The great thing about this faction for the party is that it is the most loyal and dependable element of the party... theirs is not to question why... theirs is simply to march and die (if necessary). They are the pillars of the party... and powerful weapons in the hands of a leader who is prepared to use them (against enemies internal or external).

When the Leader sounds an alarm... this will be the first battalion to respond!

Now enters the theory of democracy... The FNM and the PLP are both supposed to be democratic organisations where freedom of speech and thought are not only welcomed, but encouraged, and any member of the organisation can aspire to any position in the party, be it leader, secretary or chaplain.

When applied to real life situations however, democracy may be only a theory.
 Without bias we note that the Deputy-Leader, Mrs Loretta Butler-Turner of the FNM has expressed her dissatisfaction with the Leader of the party and the party’s lack of direction, and began a campaign to challenge the leadership of Dr Minnis at any convention the FNM were to call. True democracy!

Doctor Minnis however, it seems, instead of celebrating this great display of democracy, succumbed to his insecurities as a political leader and sounded the alarm that the party was under attack and let loose the “dogs of war”.
 Accusations... charges and counter-charges began to fly, in what should have been a very civil and genteel contest to determine who the FNM needs at this time to face the PLP behemoth. This, however, is not a question which concerns the Lunatic fringe.

Dr Minnis and the FNM will make a great miscalculation if they allow or paint Mrs Butler-Turner as an enemy and they will do Bahamian democracy a great disservice!

JOHN LAMBERT

Nassau,

October 21, 2014.