The Tribune

By Malcolm Strachan

AT a time when there are lots of ways to focus on what the government is doing, the FNM seems busier trying to fight internally.

The schoolyard squabbling has been going on to such an extent that a Supreme Court judge had to tell everyone to take a timeout last week, ordering leader Michael Pintard, chairman Dr Duane Sands and vice-chairman Richard Johnson not to personally attack each other or other FNM members in public until she has ruled on a lawsuit brought by Mr Johnson.

The judge’s order covered comments in the press and on social media. She also ordered them to comply with the party’s constitution while attending any meetings or functions.

Of course, the judge shouldn’t have to do that – abiding by the constitution is something the party should have to do as a very basic matter of proceedings. And attacking one’s own members is the very definition of ineffective opposition.

Mr Johnson’s lawsuit sees him seeking $500,000 in damages after he claimed FNM executives unanimously barred him from council meetings.

Meanwhile, there has been a growing rift between Pintard’s supporters and those of former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis, amid claims that there were efforts to stop Dr Minnis from speaking at constituency meetings.

Dr Sands has denied there are such efforts, saying: “There’s no stifling taking place – there’s no interest in stifling.”

However, there does seem to be tension, with rival camps and rival meetings going on.

The chairman of the Carmichael Constituency Association, Peter Outten, warned that if Dr Minnis was prevented from speaking in that constituency, “it will be war”.

Tellingly, Dr Sands said “that language is inconsistent with, you know, a well-functioning political organisation”.

He’s right, which is more telling of the state of the FNM than anything else.

The situation with Dr Minnis is bizarre. Dr Minnis didn’t just lose the last election – he was trounced. And yet, despite the electorate telling him where to go with his platform, he seems to think the public wants him back.

When Perry Christie lost in a landslide, he recognised how his time had come and gone. When Ingraham crashed out of office, he did the decent thing and stepped aside as an MP. Dr Minnis, meanwhile, who had said if he had won this would have been his last term as leader, cannot seem to let his moment go.

Heaven knows why he thinks there is still a place for him in office. The Oban debacle resurfaced recently, with him continuing to claim it was the preceding Christie administration that was to blame for the lack of due diligence in the deal that he signed. All of this at a time when the former principal of that project, Peter Krieger, was agreeing to be sanctioned and pay fines after being accused of defrauding investors of $5.2m. This is the third time he has been accused of misappropriating investor money, and the second time he has agreed to pay penalties, but oh no, Dr Minnis, you go on and blame the people who came before you.

The media did more due diligence than Dr Minnis, it would seem – and that alone ought to be disqualifying for anyone who wants to lead the country. You do your own homework, especially on a deal as big as $5.5bn.

Dr Minnis was also largely disliked for the series of lockdown measures introduced during the start of the COVID pandemic. Whether they were appropriate for personal safety or not, Dr Minnis came across as arrogant and distant from the concerns of many people. It did not add to his likeability when it came to election time. He called the election early, and the public gave its verdict.

Dr Minnis seems to be pinning his hopes on being able to win enough internal support to gain the leadership – and then perhaps be the beneficiary of The Bahamas’ seemingly perpetual habit of giving a government one term and out. He might be the man to break the nation of that habit and give the PLP a second term.

In the meantime, he is serving as a distraction for the party when it should be focused on the role of opposition.

It doesn’t help that on a number of issues, the current leadership seems to struggle to articulate its own position.

Take the Royal Caribbean plan for Paradise Island, for example. In office, the FNM supported that project – and in opposition, Pintard seems to be trying to nitpick about the PLP position rather than expressing his own view. He points out the Prime Minister’s U-turn over time, he notes that the Education Minister should resign if she opposes a Cabinet decision publicly – but does he actually think the project is a bad idea? It is hard to say – which means he isn’t offering a clear choice or contrast.

Then there is what should be an easy win for the FNM – the issue of public disclosures. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can call for the publication of public disclosures – so we can all see who did or did not comply with the law in declaring by the deadline. Mr Pintard seems to be showing no interest in doing so – is he protecting a key ally in his party perhaps by doing so who failed to comply? It is hard to tell, but by not taking the lead on such an issue, he shows we can expect nothing better in terms of transparency and accountability under his leadership. This should be an issue the Opposition – any Opposition – can lead on, instead we are stuck with the same old, same old.

Is the reason Dr Minnis sees a glimmer of opportunity that Mr Pintard isn’t showing the way in leadership with clearly defined positions? I’m not convinced about that – rocking the boat seems to benefit Dr Minnis come what may – but it does affect how the public looks in on the FNM and how the party is perceived when it comes to the possibility of leading the nation.

One thing is for certain – the party needs to get its house in order, and it shouldn’t need a judge to tell them to behave properly in order to do so.