The Tribune

By LARRY SMITH

NOW that the political battle lines for the upcoming general election are as clear as they will ever get - and the election has been set for May 10 - we can take a look at the prospects.

Initial observations are that the old guard of the Progressive Liberal Party retain their mafia-like grip on the party. And they are desperately doubling down on promises and threats as the campaign begins.

Familiar characters from my youth still loom large and in charge - grossly so, in fact. They include the likes of Bernard Nottage, Perry Christie, Baltron Bethel, Bradley Roberts and Allyson Maynard-Gibson.

Meanwhile, disaffected and disappointed supporters of the Free National Movement (FNM) have made a concerted effort to coalesce around Dr Hubert Minnis as the only effective choice left to them. And the party now features fresh personalities from top to bottom.

But the FNM’s strategy still seems to rely on confidence that the government will fall into their hands no matter what they do or don’t do. They may be right - the ground game is not visible to me - but on the surface this is the most laissez-faire opposition campaign in memory.

The seven FNM parliamentarians who removed Minnis as Opposition leader last year are now politically irrelevant, and most won’t be running this time around. Only Loretta Butler-Turner has confirmed her independent candidacy in Long Island.

According to the Democaratic National Alliance (DNA), the political reality in The Bahamas has changed and both the PLP and FNM will have to eat crow this time around. They believe it is they who will decide who will govern the country for the next five years. Their 60-page platform includes pledges for a series of inquiries into hot-button controversies like the Bank of The Bahamas meltdown, a $500m economic stimulus, liberalisation of the energy sector, creation of a national lottery and implementation of local government on New Providence.

“Unlike the FNM and PLP who have released similar manifestos, and failed to deliver, this is not just campaign talk - this is what we will accomplish,” the DNA said. “We don’t have aspirations as a political dynasty and if we can’t deliver in our first five years then we don’t belong in government.”

Electoral history

The DNA is the biggest unknown quantity in this election. If it did not exist there is no doubt that Christie’s PLP would be swept out in a landslide despite Minnis’ incoherence and FNM in-fighting. But the fact that it does exist - and even has a record - makes forecasting much more problematic.

The DNA won over 13,000 votes in the 2012 election - impressive for a new party - and effectively threw several seats to the PLP, without itself coming close to winning a single constituency. Party insiders say they now have 35,000 registered members. Figures for the PLP and FNM have never been publicly available.

The DNA’s singular achievement was its role in driving Hubert Ingraham into retirement. And its biggest achievement this time around may be providing the same deluxe service to Perry Christie.

In the 2007 general election, splinter candidates (the Bahamas Democratic Movement and several independents) received only three per cent of the vote. The FNM won about 50 per cent of the vote while the PLP won 48 per cent.

Before 2012, the electoral high point for candidates not drawn from the two major parties was the general election of 2002, when they collectively won 7.5 per cent of the vote. But that was largely due to the fact that the PLP refrained from fielding candidates against several independents (all former FNM incumbents).

The present situation

As of April 9 - the day before Parliament dissolved - there were 167,000 registered voters. And the final number was expected to top out at around 170,000 - roughly the same as in the 2012 election.

It is interesting to look back at a March 2012 opinion poll that put the PLP and FNM in a dead heat with 32 per cent of respondents favouring one or the other and 28 per cent undecided. Interestingly, eight per cent favoured the DNA - which was almost identical to the actual outcome.

According to M’wale Rahming, his polling indicated a significant anti-government vote that was being split by the PLP and the DNA. “Bahamians do not believe the DNA can win and believe that one of the two other parties will win the next election, but aren’t sure which one,” he said in 2012.

The eventual 2012 election result was 48.6 per cent for the PLP, 42.09 per cent for the FNM, 8.48 per cent for the DNA, and less than one per cent for independents. This put the combined non-PLP vote at 51.3 per cent out of 156,000 votes cast.

Although the 2012 pre-election poll put the PLP and FNM in a “statistical dead heat”, then Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham claimed all the numbers pointed to a FNM victory: “We are ahead in votes, ahead in enthusiasm and ahead in support,” he bragged.

This time, Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis is predicting a similar victory for the PLP: “I see no reason why we shouldn’t take 30 seats.” So he is assuming that the PLP has not lost any support over its chaotic five-year term and will retain all the seats it currently holds. That’s a stretch by any measure - unless the electoral process is manipulated.

A clear case can be made that the situation in the country today is very similar to that in 1992. In addition to the PLP’s increasingly authoritarian style, back then the country was running out of economic options due to corruption and mismanagement.

Hotels were selling out, little foreign investment was coming in, and there were widespread fears of devaluation. Many people were considering emigration, but Sir Lynden Pindling didn’t seem to notice - he made 17 overseas trips in 1992 alone.

The main difference today is that both the FNM and PLP have been swapping seats in the cabinet room over the past 25 years, whereas in 1992 the FNM was an insurgent party with a fresh, capable leader (Hubert Ingraham) set to overturn a quarter century of heavy-handed PLP rule.

In both 2002 and 2012, when the PLP were returned to power after periods in the wilderness, there was a lot of commentary about Perry Christie’s great opportunity to change not only the constitution but the entire political culture of The Bahamas through a policy of inclusion, collaboration and consensus.

But in practice he went the other way - appointing ideologues, partisan relics and conflicted individuals to every key national post and only talking about a constructive new politics. He squandered both opportunities and his legacy will be the worse for it.

Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham have both gone from the scene. And many see Christie as an exhausted figure who is about to go. It really is time for a new politics. And can we have some imagination for a change please?

• What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com.