Political ineptness in The Bahamas... ...

Rights and wrongs of Cuban migrant dispute

By Front Porch
frontporchguardian@gmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

Last week was settling into another stretch of bad news for the inept and faltering Christie administration.  Suddenly, on Thursday, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis handed a government in a defensive crouch a line of offense, an unexpected opening to attempt to switch the storyline from that of its gross incompetence to one of Dr. Minnis’ patriotism.

With the announcement of its trading places two-step, swapping the placements of ambassadors to the U.S. and the UN, the bungled appointment of Dr. Elliston Rahming neared a sort of climax, though leaving serious unanswered questions, the government on its heels, looking amateurish and incompetent.

Of alleged abuse of Cuban migrants at the detention center and the domestic and international fallout from what is now widely acknowledged as a fake video of the alleged abuse, the government seemed stuck in Goldilocks mode with Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell often too hot in his rhetoric and Prime Minister Perry Christie too cool when it came to taking charge of the matter.

The opposition was left with two prime opportunities to flex its policy and political muscles.  First, continuing to hammer away at the ambassadorial appointment fiasco.

Secondly, in the vacuum left by the government’s too cool indecision and too hot impetuousness on the Cuban migrant issue, Dr. Minnis had a golden opportunity to get it just right on a contentious matter at the intersection of domestic and foreign policy.

Tone-deaf

Prudence and good judgment are synonyms for getting it just right.  Gifted by events with the opportunity to demonstrate prudential judgment, Dr. Minnis proved to be foolhardy and tone-deaf.

Effective communication involves not just what one intends to says.  More importantly, it concerns what others hear you to say and what they don’t feel they have heard.

There are multiple issues related to the current Cuban migrant affair.  Dr. Minnis and the opposition are right in vigorously pressing for the full disclosure of any abuse at the detention center.

But what has been sorely lacking in the opposition’s response is a more comprehensive approach.  That approach should have included a clearer message reaffirming the opposition’s support of basic immigration policy relative of migrants.

More so, the opposition needed to be more emphatic in demonstrating national unity in the face of those seeking to scuttle our immigration policy, run roughshod over Bahamian sovereignty and inflict damage to our tourist-based economy.

Dr. Minnis’ failure to ensure the proper sequencing and calibration of the FNM’s messaging left the opposition open to severe criticism.  And it has been withering, from charges of recklessness to failing to stand up for the country.

While Dr. Minnis may not have shown the best judgment in handling the complex of issues at hand, attacks on his patriotism and that of the opposition are ridiculous and offensive.

Mitchell is no more of a patriot than Dr. Minnis.  And vile and contemptuous are claims by some that various of Dr. Minnis’ remarks were treasonous; which is not to say that such attacks are ineffective.

In his handling of the Cuban migrant issue, Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell has often proven imperious, rattled, undiplomatic, bellicose and belligerent.

Understatement

The Opposition and others are justified in criticizing various elements of his conduct of the matter at hand, as minister responsible for both foreign affairs and immigration.  Mitchell himself has admitted that matters could have been handled better.  Which of course is an extraordinary understatement.

By failing to act quicker and in a more forthright manner in addressing the abuse claims, the government helped provide fodder to the Florida-based interest group Democracy Movement, endlessly itching for any opening to attempt dictating Bahamian immigration policy to their liking.

As an aside, by interfering in domestic politics in calling for the resignation of Minister Mitchell, the interest group again demonstrated its unbridled arrogance.  Imagine how out of bounds it would be for a Bahamian group to call for the resignation of a federal U.S. Cabinet member.

Now Prime Minister Perry Christie is hemming and hawing about whether information will be provided to the public on abuse at the detention center, abuse that is said to be quite gruesome and sickening.

When will politicians learn that covering up certain matters makes a bad situation even worse. The information should be released as soon as possible.  Failure to do so will fuel more demonstrations and potential international fallout. Meanwhile the credibility of the Christie administration continues to dwindle.

Amidst its prevarication, ineptitude and bungling, the government has seized the politics of nationalism and the politics of empathy, something Dr. Minnis, thus far, has gotten wrong to the amazement and consternation of many, including many FNMs.

The FNM has often gotten wrong the politics of nationalism and the politics of empathy, despite its record of protecting the country’s national interests and better record than the PLP in areas ranging from social policy to economic empowerment to women’s rights.

Pretending

And yet the FNM has consistently allowed the PLP to get away with pretending to be the more nationalist and empathetic party.  A part of the PLP’s winning combination in 2012 was to appear as the feeling party that also put Bahamians first.

In politics, empathy typically beats arguments of competence and effectiveness. And nationalism is usually a trump card, something that many in the FNM seem unwilling to learn.

The PLP’s claim of being more nationalistic than the FNM is laughable and far from credible given its record of allowing drug barons to overrun the country in the 1980s, its dalliances with all manner of shady foreign interlopers, the massive giveaway of land at Mayaguana, clear conflicts of interest by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister with a foreign oil exploration company, and many other examples.

But when Dr. Minnis failed initially and more clearly to express common cause with the government in the face of certain attacks from abroad, it made the FNM seem less empathetic and nationalistic than the PLP on an issue necessitating a demonstration of national unity.

This is yet another blunder by Dr. Minnis, who has now demonstrated an entrenched pattern of misjudgement and shockingly poor judgment.

Increasingly more and more Bahamians and FNMs are concluding that Dr. Minnis is far from up to his current role, which is disheartening as the country desperately needs a more prudent and capable opposition leader who can mount a more effective opposition to a feckless and disaster of a government that is the Christie administration.

In the end, the Cuban migrant affair is not about the opposition’s response.  It is about whatever abuse may have taken place at the detention center and the government’s response in getting the facts out and taking appropriate action in a timely manner.

Further, it is the prime minister and his Cabinet who are ultimately responsible for acting appropriately or with “gross stupidity”, negligence and arrogance in handling the domestic and foreign policy elements of this entire affair.

August 29, 2013

thenassauguardian

Is Dr. Hubert Minnis simply the Interim Leader of the Official Opposition - Free National Movement (FNM) party in The Bahamas?

Interim leader?

Minnis struggles to establish formidable opposition

BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

Nearly a year after voters delivered a wholesale rejection of the Free National Movement (FNM), the opposition party finds itself in a familiar place — lacking strong, convincing leadership and struggling to stay effective and relevant even with a government that has so far failed to deliver on key near-term promises made on a grueling campaign trail.

The 2012 general election was bitterly fought with high stakes for both the FNM and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

Although it made a commendable showing, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) was never really a major force to contend with.

In some circles, Branville McCartney’s name still comes up when discussions take place about a possible leader for the FNM closer to the next election.

But McCartney, the charismatic head of the DNA, has not in my view proven himself an impressive enough leader, though many applaud him for being brave enough to stand up to Hubert Ingraham and resign from his Cabinet, and tenacious enough to go head to head with Ingraham and Perry Christie at the polls.

The PLP and FNM both headed into the 2012 general election with the same problem: What to do about leadership in the event of a loss.

Neither party had a clearly defined succession plan.

With a win at the polls, the PLP was able to kick the can down the road, but for the FNM, the leadership question became an immediate issue and the party needed a quick solution.

The resignation of Hubert Ingraham from the FNM on the night of the election defeat left many supporters reeling, and some have yet to get over his departure from frontline politics.

The wipeout of most of the former Cabinet put the party in a difficult position as it turned its focus toward identifying new leadership.

The Free National Movement was left fractured and bloodied by the May 7, 2012 defeat, and in shambles by Ingraham’s exit from the political stage, and it had very little options.

For nearly a year now, Dr. Hubert Minnis, the popular Killarney MP, has been doing his best to keep the FNM afloat, but he lacks what is needed to re-energize the party.

It does not help that he still has to work against a very strong pro-Ingraham group within the FNM.

It is likely that Minnis was caught totally off-guard by the task placed before him in May 2012.

He has shown great focus in attempting to put the pieces back together, but he comes on the tail of a formidable force, a towering personality, and it might not be possible for him to provide supporters with the kind of comfort, assurance or strong leadership of an Ingraham.

While Minnis must be respected for his leadership style, and it will take time for the party to adjust, it does not now appear likely that the FNM will go into the next general election with Minnis as leader.

For now, he is playing an important role of attempting to keep all the marbles in the circle until the party is able to identify someone who is able to display the kind of leadership and charisma needed to do battle with the PLP once again.

During the last term, FNMs and PLPs alike acknowledged that Minnis was a strong, hard working and likeable MP.  Today, he remains that.

He uses social media and other technologies to communicate with constituents and is deeply engaged in his constituency.

Minnis lucked out though from having a safe seat, and some observers acknowledged that it would have been very difficult for any FNM to lose Killarney, no matter how unpopular Ingraham and the FNM had become in the lead up to the last general election.

While a good MP, Minnis is not a career politician and was not known during the last term as a standout minister.

His communications in Parliament then, and his contributions to debates now are not engaging or particularly informative.

He does not command attention, and even with all the obvious slip ups of the Christie administration, he struggles to use them to his advantage.

There is evidence that he does try, though.

Last week, the FNM leader called for the government and the police to close down web shop gaming after the chief justice lifted an order that had provided the web shops with temporary legal protection.

But it was hard for Minnis to come off as convincing given his early position that he supported the legalization of web shop gaming in The Bahamas.

One issue Minnis has not gotten credit for though is that he asked pertinent questions about the National Insurance Board on the floor of the House of Assembly long before the matter was on the radar of the media or anyone else publicly.

United

Minnis has had a tough first year as leader of the FNM.

He was forced to prop up an obviously bad candidate (Greg Gomez) in the October 2012 North Abaco by-election.

And he angered some supporters when he declared, “The Ingraham era is over.”

North Abaco was the third consecutive election lost by the FNM and some party supporters still struggle from the hurt and disappointments of those defeats.

While some seem to have gotten a recent boost from growing anti-PLP sentiment in social media, over the airwaves and elsewhere, the road to 2017 will be long.

While it has already been publicly revealed that FNM Chairman Darron Cash had been at odds with Minnis, the two in recent months have been careful enough to display a united approach to opposition politics.

They at least seem to have patched things up.

This is a positive sign.

Opposition parties, of course, turn themselves around all the time.  That is how they win elections.

Following the 2007 defeat, the PLP was a weakened bunch with a leader who had been severely wounded by the defeat.

Christie was identified as the key reason the party lost at the polls, and was advised by experts to effect key reforms if the party was to have any real chance at a 2012 win.

In opposition, the PLP never stopped pounding and it never stopped campaigning.

It benefited from a strong group of former ministers who took their blows from the governing party and never took their eyes off of 2012 and the chance it represented.

Only three members of Ingraham’s last Cabinet held on to seats in Parliament: Minnis; Neko Grant (Central Grand Bahama) and FNM Deputy Loretta Butler-Turner (Long Island), whose best approach to opposition politics appears to be boisterous and disruptive behavior in Parliament.

The other FNM members are Edison Key (the MP for Central and South Abaco who also sat in the previous Parliament), and newcomers Richard Lightbourn (Montagu); Peter Turnquest (East Grand Bahama); Hubert Chipman (St. Anne’s) and Theo Neilly (North Eleuthera).

The FNM of today is reminiscent of the FNM that existed for most of the first term of the Christie administration.

Between 2002 and 2005, the party was led by Tommy Turnquest, who sat in the Senate after he lost the Mount Moriah seat.

The FNM under Turnquest was lackluster and fractured, though Turnquest, like Minnis took the leadership job seriously.

In 2005, Turnquest appointed an advisory council of the party headed by former Deputy Prime Minister Frank Watson to advise on what the party needed to do to win the 2007 election.

The council advised Turnquest that there are many FNMs who want him out and Ingraham back in as leader.

Even today, some FNMs think Ingraham could still successfully return to frontline politics.

For them, there is that nostalgic longing for ‘Papa’.

Hiatus

Earlier this year, Ingraham used a familiar word when he told reporters that he was on “hiatus”.

But when asked the context in which he was speaking, he assured that it was not a suggestion that he planned one day to return to frontline politics.

It was a throwback to his word choice during a public event in 2004.

While addressing a group of administrative professions in Freeport, Grand Bahama, Ingraham referred to his departure from frontline politics as a “hiatus” and said it could stay that way as long as those who were in office advanced The Bahamas and its people.

Following Ingraham’s dramatic return as leader of the FNM in 2005, I recall asking an ever-confident Prime Minister Christie to react to the move.

Christie said Ingraham’s legacy was “on the line” and he vowed to politically cremate him in the next general election.

“I’m really sad that he came back,” Christie said.

“He has placed his legacy on the line and when you place your legacy on the line in a battle with the Progressive Liberal Party – Hubert Ingraham, Perry Christie, however one would wish to look at it – he will lose.”

It turned out that Christie’s prediction was wrong — as least as it related to 2007.

Christie had to wait five more years for the political cremation he foreshadowed.

Strange things do happen in politics.

Five years is a long time for the government to show the electorate what it can and cannot do and for the opposition to show its strength or lack thereof.

We would hope though that the FNM does not this time around feel it’s only real hope is to drag Ingraham out of retirement back into frontline politics.

Ingraham has taken the party far over the nearly 20 years he led it.  He has won three general elections and left in place a legacy of which to be proud.

Minnis is right that the Ingraham era is over.

For the FNM, the decision will eventually need to be made on how long the Minnis era could realistically last.

April 22, 2013

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International