The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

FREE National Movement newcomer Mark Humes yesterday said that Fort Charlotte MP Dr Andre Rollins did not have a credible record to support his aggressive critique of the party’s leadership.

Mr Humes, former Democratic National Alliance (DNA) chairman, called on Dr Rollins to declare whether he intends to vie for the FNM leadership post at the convention, or find more constructive ways to assist the organisation through this difficult period.

Mr Humes also ran against Dr Rollins in the 2012 election, but lost the Ft Charlotte constituency to Dr Rollins, then a PLP member.

He insisted he was not against Dr Rollins’ “belligerent” call for a healthy democracy within the FNM, but was only suggesting that the cause would be better served if it were brought by a member with a proven record that could lead by example.

Mr Humes asked: “Has he shown over the short term of his political career that he does have the right judgment to see the wider picture and the temperament to lead a charge for or call into question another’s visionary and transformative leadership skills?”

“I stand to be corrected, but did he display right judgment when he pandered and joined up with the PLP and, later, the FNM, understanding prior that neither leader had ‘vision’?

“Dr Rollins was well aware,” Mr Humes added. “The public domain is full of his comments about the lack of vision that both Perry Christie and Hubert Minnis had before he made a determination to join them both,” he said.

“So why is he now, once again, sounding alarms and getting everyone else alarmed again over something he knew and said he knew before he joined these organisations?”

Dr Rollins’ recent outspoken stance on the FNM’s leadership struggles has positioned him at the centre of renewed efforts by the majority of the FNM’s parliamentary team to engender an earlier convention date.

Six of the opposition’s 10 MPs have threatened to petition Governor General Dame Marguerite Pindling to remove Dr Minnis as leader of the Official Opposition unless the initial November date is pushed up.

A special council meeting will be held Thursday night to discuss this.

In his latest attack, Dr Rollins lambasted supporters of Dr Hubert Minnis, accusing them of “espousing the tactics of a demagogue interested in dumbing down the debate because the leader has no substance or vision for this country.”

Yesterday, Mr Humes underscored that the Fort Charlotte MP had four years to demonstrate vision and transformation in his constituency as both a member of the PLP and FNM, and had squandered the perfect opportunity.

“As an MP, God gave him charge over a small cause, like Ft Charlotte, to possibly prepare and establish him, one day, to lead this greater national cause,” he said.

“What is it in his track record as leader in the community that would point to him as able to criticise the vision, change, and transformation skills of another at this present time?”

Mr Humes added: “What would the residents of Ft Charlotte have to say about that? Would they consider him truthful to his words, and if not, could this hurt him as the chief messenger?

“If it does, he too must be careful that his words do not come back to haunt him when he says, that leaders must never be afraid to allow democracy to reign.

“But, perhaps, if he too is fit and can show signs of his vision in the community, he too will weather the storm in Ft Charlotte as its elected leader.”

Mr Humes theorised that if the Fort Charlotte MP was viewed as disingenuous by the majority of his constituents based on his contradictory statements and actions, then his credibility and that of the FNM party would be negatively impacted.

“It is my belief that the temperament and decision making abilities of visionary and transformative leaders should display a certain level of skills that speak to right thinking, particularly in times of crisis; particularly in leading others through times of crisis, to safety and success.”

Mr Humes said: “And as much as many may be fond of Dr Rollins’ messages, the ways in which he chooses to deliver them – in most instances – makes some call into question the messages as hypocritical and/or duplicitous in many aspects.

“It calls into question his ability to lead this important charge, because he does not appear to have the right temperament to deal with the decisions that come about as a result of his own judgment.”

Mr Humes cautioned Dr Rollins to demonstrate a greater level of awareness as he was being judged by another generation of potential leaders, who would ultimately decide whether he had the integrity to lead at the local and national level.