The Tribune

BY SIMON

Infighting is a regular occurrence in political parties. Nevertheless, when divisions explode and ricochet in the media and in public, questions arise concerning the stability of a party and its leaders and its suitability for office.

Though governing and opposition parties have similar kinds of infighting, there are divisions unique to government and opposition. Currently in the UK, the incumbent Labour Party, which enjoys a huge majority in the House of Commons, is experiencing mounting grumbling over its economic and budgetary policies.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the first woman to hold this post in British history, are experiencing blowback mostly from the left of the party on budget cuts including, cuts to welfare, the public service, and international development aid.

Sir Keir’s premiership is not at risk. He still enjoys support in the party, buttressed by his parliamentary majority. Opposition and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is the first black person and woman to hold these posts. Her Conservative Party was founded in 1834.

Mrs Badenoch is enduring sniping from opponents within the party who are complaining about some of her policy positions and pronouncements; her communications and media strategy; what some view as lackluster performances during Prime Minister Question (PMQ), and a number of other complaints.

In office, a party has the rewards, patronage, and burdens of office. Cabinet, parliamentary and party members often spar over all three of the aforementioned. Ministers love to take credit for accomplishments while blaming others for mistakes, including their own oversights and missteps. Collective irresponsibility is a prime feature of some governments.

The very same cabinet minister who will blush and obsequiously tell a prime minister what he or she wants to hear, and how wonderful is the head of government, will as quickly go behind the back of the head to stab them repeatedly in private conversations.

The thousands cuts from which a government bleeds and perishes, are typically inflicted by prime ministers, as well as warring cabinet ministers with outsized egos and self-importance. Cabinet ministers are infamous for gossiping and briefing against colleagues they dislike.

Some ministers are notoriously selfish, stingy at doing favors for colleagues. Today’s PLP, like former FNM and PLP governments, is beset by all manner of infighting, rivalries, petty jealousies, misunderstandings, and foibles.

Despite the divisions, the desire to win and to divide the spoils of office, tend to concentrate minds and temporarily paper over divisions. Party members have to be especially careful in the social media age, as divisions may widen, deepen, and become entrenched through voice notes, posts, and other various messages.

Journalists generally salivate over division. They delight in feeding the public’s appetite for conflict, drama, and personality clashes.

Journalists less interested in the complexity of policy discussions especially enjoy the low hanging fruit of political rows which require precious little reporting skills or research. The back and forth of such infighting is too juicy to ignore.

In opposition, parties tend to jockey more fiercely for leadership posts and nominations in preparation for returning to office. The fierce rivalry between former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis and former Long Island Member of Parliament Loretta Butler Turner went to the wire, resolved only after years of fierce infighting.

In the end, the decision by Butler Turner and her colleagues to remove Dr Minnis as Leader of the Opposition backfired spectacularly.

Mrs Butler Turner and her colleagues, who were deeply frustrated by their treatment by Dr Minnis and his performance as FNM and opposition leader, had no game plan in the aftermath of his being deposed as opposition leader.

Their actions engendered a backlash and sympathy vote for Dr Minnis, who went on to lead the FNM to a landslide victory.

When voters are insistent on rejecting incumbents, it is near impossible to stem the coming tsunami-like wave, though governments desperately employ the same old tactics to save the day, such as boundary changes, budgetary treats, road paving, new contracts, rehires, etc.

One strategy that rarely works is reminding voters of one’s accomplishments. Most voters general do not care a lick, especially when their economic fortunes are parlous.

Voters want to know what you are going to do for them next time. Public relations and communications rarely save a government when voter are intent on humbling and punishing those in power.

The FNM today is considerably more united that when the party was last in opposition. There are no threats to Michael Pintard’s leadership.

The FNM has known the depth of disunity and dysfunction. As noted last week, the party split relatively soon after its formation and in the lead-up to the 1977 general election.

After the election the Bahamian Democratic Party (BDP) constituted the larger part of the FNM, the recognition of which by the majority of opposition voters led to the party becoming the Official Opposition, gaining more voters than the smaller FNM grouping.

The FNM faction under the banner of the Free National Movement, led by Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield, lost a stunning 22 deposits. Had the BDP contested the two seats in Grand Bahama that the FNM faction won, the latter would probably have been wiped out in the House of Assembly.

In an example of statesmanship on the part of Sir Cecil, who had come to learn a valuable lesson about unity, he stepped down as leader and put the interests of the FNM ahead of himself. After Sir Kendal Isaacs became leader, the party made great strides.

However, it is not only the FNM that has known deep division. The PLP has endured some of the deepest divisions and disunity in our political history, including the near Christmas coup of 1962, and the 1965 departure of those who created the National Democratic Party (NDP). The deepest division was the split that gave birth to the FNM.

Quite early in the PLP’s tenure in office there were mounting concerns about the increasing lack of collegiality and the growing cult of personality surrounding Sir Lynden Pindling. There was alarm over a number of policy decisions at odds with the party’s progressive philosophy.

The Bahamas Airways disaster and Freeport, including the Benguet Affair, prominently figured in the concerns of those alarmed at the direction Sir Lynden was taking the country. There was the widespread view that the young premier was dragging his feet on promises made by the PLP.

There were originally more dissidents than the eight who finally left to form the Free PLP and then the Free National Movement.

But when the vote of no confidence came, some of the more insistent critics of Sir Lynden and the direction of the PLP, buckled in their convictions, absenting themselves from the House chamber with dubious excuses or failing to vote with the dissidents.

Both major parties have experienced historic divisions, which pale in comparison to the infighting in the PLP and FNM today. More on this history of division and disunity next week.