The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune

NO ONE can deny that Rodney Moncur is an indefatigable, tenacious political aspirant.

The former leader of the defunct Workers’ Party and former DNA candidate who had shifted his allegiance to the FNM in 2014, has been a vociferous and entertaining activist and contributor to the national discourse over the past 40 years.

Moncur is no tyro when it comes to politics. He means the country well, notwithstanding his stubborn propensity for committing gaffes; and despite being all over the political map in recent years. Whether or not he receives an FNM nomination remains to be seen.

Him getting one is not out of the realm of possibility, however. His bid to become FNM chair suggests that he believes he is deeply entrenched enough in the party to win, despite only being a party member since 2014.

That he would even be nominated is, in my view, indicative of how badly the FNM has deteriorated, in terms of its best and brightest refusing to roll up their sleeves and assist the party which is currently at its lowest ebb since 1977, when it came third in the general election polls behind the PLP and the BDP. The race for the FNM chair position between Moncur and Sidney Collie has caused some to ask if this is the best that the opposition party has to offer? After publicly stating that he is a xenophobe, one can rightly question Moncur’s competence to chair one of the largest political organisations in The Bahamas, which has a support base well into 50,000-plus, half of whom are women, the very demographic his xenophobic rant could alienate.

Based on Moncur’s xenophobic rhetoric, one is drawn to the conclusion that he still has a fringe political party mentality. If he was still a DNA member or leader of the Workers’ Party, he and his supporters wouldn’t need to fear a political backlash from voters, as very few voters give those respective parties the time of day anyway.

Moncur’s opposition, in and of itself, to the gender equality bills is really not the issue here. The issue is what is motivating him to oppose them. The writer too opposes the bills. But his opposition is intrinsically political.

The writer will vote ‘‘no’’ because the PLP and the late Paul Adderley persuaded him to reject the 2002 referendum. Seeing that he was admonished to vote ‘‘no’’ then, why tell him to vote ‘‘yes’’ now? What has changed between then and now that would cause the PLP to want us to vote ‘‘yes’’?

Moncur’s opposition, based on his own unsolicited admission, is based on xenophobia. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, he has yet to retract his controversial comments.

It would be an enormous gamble for the FNM to elect Moncur as national chair, no matter how energetic and talented he is. Him being FNM chair is a frightening prospect.

But, then again the options for the FNM are severely limited, owing to the fact that so many talented, seasoned FNM old guards are refusing to become actively engaged in the day-to-day operations of the party which has done so much for them.

KEVIN EVANS

Freeport,

April 6, 2016