The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune

THE Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has been around on the Bahamian political scene for more than five years now.

Who thought that this genesis of a party had any chance in hell of survival. But, they are still around today, ready and waiting to contest the next general elections.

During the last general elections (2012) the DNA made a respectable showing at the polls (taking their youth into account) by garnering approximately 8.5 per cent of the popular vote. The results were totally unexpected even by members and supporters of this “baby” party. After the dust had settled, the DNA had secured for themselves the nomenclature of being a “spoiler party”.

What does that mean? When you take into consideration that after all the votes had been tallied and the official outcome made public, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had amassed (approx) 48.6 per cent of the popular vote, and the Free National movement (FNM) picked up (approx) 42 per cent, theory dictates that if the DNA had not thrown their proverbial “hat into the ring” and all the 8.5 per cent that they had compiled had been transferred to the FNM, theoretically speaking, the FNM could have won the elections.

In the ensuing years, the hierarchy of the DNA, its members and supporters did not take too kindly to the common practice of Bahamians continuing to refer to the DNA as “the spoiler party”.

According to an old adage “the truth hurts”. And it is my humble opinion that there is some truth to that designation. Furthermore, even the Bible will tell you that the “truth” will make you free.

So it would be prudent for the DNA to “wake up and smell the coffee” and come to the sensible conclusion (as, I guess, most Bahamians have) that their chances of winning the government during the next general elections are very slim.

I have come to a conclusion that, based on my more than 50 years of experience on this earth, Bahamians cast their votes in three basic ways. Before they mark their “X” on the ballot, Bahamians take into consideration

(1) The qualifications of the candidate offering themselves for service as a Member of Parliament,

(2) Their loyalty to a particular party, and

(3) Who is the leader of any particular party.

The individual who leads a particular party weighs heavily in my decision of how I will mark my “X” in general elections.

I like Branville McCartney, leader of the DNA. He is of my generation, and he possesses everything in his character, personality, intelligence, speaking skills, charisma, sense of humour and other idiosyncrasies that make him the man that he is today.

In my book, he is a leader! And, as far as I am concerned, it was his leadership that caused the DNA to brag of such an admirable showing during the 2012 general elections.

However, I am not naïve. Even though I would one day want Bran to take up the mantle of Prime Minister, I am one of those who thinks pragmatically and has relegated the DNA to “third party” status. That reference is not a good one.

In fact, it is downright derogatory; plain and simple. But, I am an eligible voter who has a firmly held belief that the DNA is just too immature a party to expect to wrest the reigns of power from the PLP in 2017.

Do you know what would persuade me to seriously consider casting my vote in favour of Bran and his party next month?

The topic has been discussed in the public domain ever since Bran disassociated himself from the FNM five years ago. It is the same ole’, same ole’ - if the FNM should lose the May 10 general elections and the DNA should do the same (in all likelihood), why doesn’t Bran swallow his pride, “return to his vomit” (so to speak), and return to the FNM, and his supporters follow him?

However, it is my humble opinion that Bran should not even consider reaching out for the “olive branch” that I have heard has been extended to him on numerous occasions by the “small” and “big” in the FNM, if he is not offered (unequivocally) the leader’s post of that party (of course after going through the formalities of inner party elections).

Hubert Ingraham did it in April, 1990. And, afterwards, he became Prime Minister in a short space of time (August, 1992). And it does not help Bran that, right now, the DNA is commonly known as “a one man party”.

Bran has incessantly and adamantly made his position on the matter clear - he is not going back. His image is ubiquitous in the media concomitant with his comments and stories about him.

But there is still hope because this is politics and Bran is the quintessential politician. And good politicians don’t reveal their “hand” until it is the perfect and opportune time to do so.

And so, I choose to believe that Bran will do the right thing (in my mind) when the time comes. And if he does, he certainly has my vote.

MARVIN G

LIGHTBOURN

Nassau,

April 24, 2017.