The Tribune

By SIMON 

Political parties, like other institutions, are often fractious, disputatious, ever striving for greater unity. Differences and divisions in parties are normal. Members disagree along ideological, policy, and organisational grounds.

Other sources of constant disagreement revolve around personalities and leadership. Human beings enjoy power. We expend tremendous energy and resources on attaining, accumulating, and holding power and office. The desire and sometimes lust for power give rise to fissures and open wounds.

Parties have mechanisms and conventions for healing wounds and binding supporters together in pursuit of election to office and the advancement of broader political and national goals.

Both the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM) have histories of division and disunity. These divisions are driven mostly by leadership styles and personalities. While there may be policy differences within the major parties, there are no major ideological divides.

Today, the major parties are generally united heading into the next general election. Though there are some divisions with the governing party, including jockeying for future position, including to succeed Leader Philip ‘Brave’. Davis, if the party loses the upcoming national contest, the party is generally united.

The Prime Minister has no challengers to his leadership and will lead the party into political battle, attempting to secure a second consecutive term, which will be a major feat given our now three decade history of throwing out incumbents after a single term.

Leader of the Opposition, Michael Pintard, will likewise lead the FNM into the next election.

Given the declining state of the economy, including the cost of living crisis, the repeated pratfalls and often outsized errors of the PLP, and the penchant of voters to throw the incumbents out, Mr Pintard has a very good chance of becoming prime minister.

In addition to holding the government accountable, strategizing, and finding the financial and other resources necessary to be financially competitive for the general election, he must also prepare for a transition to government.

This transition includes a workable manifesto and plans for how he will organise the Office of Prime Minister and his government.

It is generally the case that voters tend to mostly dispense with the government of the day instead of voting in the opposition. Still, an opposition needs to appear credible and sufficiently united.

There is still much work the FNM and Mr Pintard need to do to prepare the party to mount an effective and well-resourced winning campaign. Like every leader who has become prime minister, there are areas in which Mr. Pintard needs to grow.

He has strengths and limitations, of which he must be rigorously and unflinchingly honest with himself. The character he possesses will be tested and on display if he becomes head of government.

The best leaders understand their characters and rely on experienced advisors who help to mitigate their shortfalls and blind spots and enhance their strengths.

With a general election due within the next two years, the FNM is renewing itself. Mr Pintard has grown as a leader. The party is generally stable, and despite the need for greater unity on some fronts, the FNM is more united than it has been in previous periods.

The vast majority of FNMs within the party and in the general public have rallied around him as leader. When a party decides on its leader, it is the duty of party members to support that leader and to assist the party moving forward.

Though the FNM is mostly united, there is a perception within the party and the country that the FNM must present a more united front.

FNM chairman Dr Duane Sands, recently noted: “I know that the leader, the deputy leader, and myself, we have worked aggressively at rebuilding the Free National Movement from a place that it was to a place that it is now…

“We met disaffected FNM’s who have come home. Would it be honest to say all of them have come home? No. Have we reached out? Yes we have, and we will continue to reach out. We realised that we are stronger with them than without.”

Dr Sands is to be congratulated for his work as chairman. Along with Mr Pintard, he has improved the party’s messaging. He has been aggressive in taking the proverbial fight to the PLP. His success may be measured by how much the PLP attacks him.

There are typically hurt feelings, divisions, and high emotions after a party loses a general election or if there is change of leader. How a party leader handles these divisions is a major test of leadership.

The proximate concern regarding unity in the FNM today, concerns one of the more contentious processes that every party leader faces, namely, candidate selection.

This is made all the more difficult for Mr Pintard, given that his predecessor, former Prime Minister Hubert Minnis, would like to run again for Killarney.

There are impassioned feelings and high emotions by those who support Dr. Minnis being afforded a nomination and those who utterly oppose any such nomination. The timely resolution of this question is vital for the further unity of the party in the minds of the general public.

Dr Minnis’s supporters and others within the party anxiously await the outcome. Mr Pintard and Dr Minnis are political rivals, who fought each other for the leadership. There is history and distrust between the two that may be managed but that will never disappear.

The party faithful within the country and the party want both sides and both men to put aside their egos sufficiently to do what is necessary for the FNM to win election. The party is bigger than personalities and egos.

For greater perspective, FNMs might want to recall the history of division within the party, which was considerably more divided in relatively recent years and some years after its creation.

Have some FNMs forgotten the tempestuous rivalry between Dr Minnis and Loretta Butler-Turner. Both were big personalities with varying strengths, as well as weaknesses and certain mindsets, which resulted in terrible and at times unnecessary political mistakes.

Dr Minnis’s leadership style often proved difficult for a quite a number of his parliamentary and other colleagues. This style was a source of considerable contention, which led to his ouster as Leader of the Opposition by Mrs Butler-Turner and several of her colleagues, more of which next week.

In the lead-up to the 1977 general election, party leader Cecil Wallace Whitfield succumbed to an autocratic impulse, unwilling to listen to advice from his parliamentary colleagues, particularly FNM Members of Parliament who lost confidence in his leadership as Sir Cecil became increasingly non-collegial.

The breaking point was the selection of candidates. Sir Cecil was insistent on the selection of Tennyson Wells as the candidate for Long Island, despite the opposition of many of his party colleagues, and against the wishes of most of the Long Island Constituency Association.

Unable to abide Sir Cecil’s “my way or the highway” attitude, much of the core of the FNM left, forming the Bahamian Democratic Party (BDP). The 1977 results were disastrous for the Opposition. The BDP faction became the Official Opposition after the general election.

After the 1977 imbroglio, several years of reunification talks led to a reconstituted party. In a meeting at his home, Sir Cecil stepped aside from leadership in favor of Sir Kendal Isaacs.

The disunity in the FNM today is considerably milder than times past. However, the causes of disunity should not be allowed to fester. Such disunity may cause the party harm, including votes and a failure to attract funding from various sources. Still, fixing what mostly divides the party today is relatively easier than fixing much that caused disunity in the past.

• More next week.