The Tribune

IN ANTICIPATION of the fast approaching general election, we analysed in these columns yesterday the poor performance of the ruling Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and called for unity amongst the opposition parties in order to bring about political change in the Bahamas.

Today, in taking an objective look at our domestic politics, we urge all those concerned in the three main parties to place less emphasis on their fundamental differences and, instead, try where possible to seek common ground with their political opponents in the hope of developing greater national unity in our small country.

About one quarter of the member states of the United Nations have populations of a half a million or less. Since each has a vote, small countries matter in the UN. But, in order to thrive in a competitive, inter-connected world, each needs to harness all its own resources in order to maximise its potential strength as a viable nation.

Whilst politicians may agree amongst themselves the definition of our national interest, the manner of achieving the country’s aims and more detailed objectives will vary and be open to debate. But, although their respective approaches to a range of issues may be dissimilar, there seems to be little basic ideological difference between our political parties.

So we believe that, for the sake of the nation as a whole, they should co-operate more with their opposition counterparts in resolving the country’s problems in a bipartisan way rather than giving precedence to their party’s narrow interests. A government will justifiably seek, as a matter of priority, to implement its own policies, but it should also ensure, in fulfilling its mandate to govern the whole country, that it acts for the benefit of all Bahamians irrespective of political affiliation.

It is not unreasonable that the long-held views and prejudices about the origins of the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) - and what they have traditionally stood for - should persist to this day. But we judge that in more modern times voters are less interested in historical differences, divisions and past affiliations and more concerned about how the country is now run for the benefit of all.

They value the democratic values and rules enshrined in our written Constitution which was inherited from Britain as the former colonial power. They equally value the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers designed to curb potential excesses of politicians which could lead to dictatorship; and above all they respect the supremacy of the rule of law in a community which should protect the rights and interests of rich and poor alike.

In an increasingly open society, with communications technology developing and improving almost daily and everyone looking over somebody else’s shoulder while keeping in touch on social media, the electorate has become more demanding and questioning of the political class - and it is prepared to challenge those who are intent on hanging on to power at any cost for their personal benefit. Modern voters may also judge whether a politician has the national interest at heart and whether he is prepared to work together with parliamentary colleagues for the common good.

New, younger voters tend to be more worldly and better informed, which makes them critical of established social mores and practices and they are prepared to express dissent. Unlike previous generations afraid of victimisation in a small community, they will not tolerate illegality and obstructionism by previously unaccountable politicians accustomed either to committing, or turning a blind eye to, the sort of blatant corruption and dishonesty which has been endemic in our nation’s body politic for too long.

As political campaigning begins in earnest soon, we believe that, while the economy and crime will be of prime importance, issues like integrity - including honesty, fairness and decency - in public life will now take centre stage. Since there is little ideological difference between the two major parties, voters will also be looking for competence in running the economy and the country as a whole; but, most fundamentally, they will demand that any new government must be accountable for its actions.

If the opposition FNM can convince a sceptical electorate that it is capable of emulating the success of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham in bringing the nation back from the brink in 1992, it could win the forthcoming election. Such much-needed change would be widely welcomed. But these are still early days and the election campaign will surely be hard-fought.