The Opposition PLP and the COVID-19 alter of sickness and death in The Bahamas

We are in a general election season in The Bahamas, and all common sense and logic seem to be thrown out the window

By Dennis Dames

COVID-19 is right in our faces, and we don’t see it for what it is. It’s a highly contagious killer virus that’s mutating rapidly into more lethal strains. The coronavirus is a global force to be reckoned with right now, and it is dubbed the invisible enemy for good reasons – because of its potentially devastating impact on the international front.

It is a serious danger to worldwide peace and stability. COVID-19 is also a grave threat to universal commerce and relationships. Every nation appears to be uneasy about their immediate future because of the raging coronavirus.

It doesn’t look like our political leaders get it. We are in a general election season in The Bahamas, and all common sense and logic seem to be thrown out the window, in my view. For example, I saw a PLP ad recently which states that a PLP government will implement free COVID-19 testing and so on.

What does free COVID-19 testing have to do with the reality that COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire now? What does free COVID-19 testing have to do with our overcrowded hospitals and morgue at this time? How will free COVID-19 testing curb the spread of COVID-19 in a tourist-dependent economy? How will free COVID-19 testing stop new COVID-19 variants from entering the country?

Let’s get real, PLP. The focus, in my humble opinion, is to convince our hardheaded unvaccinated brothers and sisters to get vaccinated soon. After all, they comprise the vast majority of COVID-19 hospital and morgue clients – 90 percent-plus.

It’s a pity and tragedy that the PLP is prepared to sacrifice many Bahamians on the COVID-19 alter of sickness and death. We lack national unity on such a dreadful issue, PLP; and all of us should be ashamed of it. It’s sad that winning an election tomorrow appears more important than saving Bahamian lives today.

Things are getting absolutely toxic and dire with the livid COVID-19 virus throughout the universe. We need to unite as one people and resolve to fight COVID-19 together. The unvaccinated is the big problem in the battle to defeat COVID-19.

Medical statistics everywhere show this, yet fools are determined to be fools. Yes PLPs, you could continue to promote your time-wasting, money-wasting and bogus free COVID test promise while our unvaccinated folks remain wickedly vulnerable to an unmerciful foe.

Yes PLP, all of your leaders are fully vaccinated. Why is it that they don’t want to share the wisdom and joy of vaccination with the unvaccinated citizens? 

Take note, PLP: There are only two choices to deal with COVID-19 – go back to lockdown, or keep the economy open.

If we choose the latter, then we must encourage the unvaccinated among us to get vaccinated. If we fail to do so, sickness, death and misery will rain down on us like a ton of bricks – and your free testing promise will prove to be dead on arrival.

Bahamas: ...The old Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) lost its way long ago ...and the so-called ‘new PLP’ has failed to find it

Sir Lynden’s and the PLP’s entitled imperial court

By frontporchguardian@gmail.com

During the 2012 general election, Sir Lynden Pindling’s widow took to the political stage as a part of the PLP’s strategy to use the late prime minister’s legacy to help the party secure victory. It is debatable how successful was the strategy.

In her appearances, Dame Marguerite sought not only to burnish Sir Lynden’s legacy, which is considerable, and much of which is admirable and contributed extraordinarily to national development.

But many in the country at large, including many PLPs, were dismayed by her tone and remarks which harkened to a darker period in the nation’s history.

Once again on vivid display was that entrenched entitlement and imperious mentality of the Pindling Court: Don’t forget what we did for you and never forget that you owe us.

Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham was chastised as a mere recipient of the favors and consideration of the court, who had supposedly turned on his political masters and benefactors.

It was a not-so-subtle reminder to party Leader Perry Christie and all other supplicants expected to offer life-long obeisance to the court.

Seemingly, the PLP is a Pindling-owned and branded enterprise merely on loan to various caretakers who are to be held accountable to the dynasty. All of which arises from an extraordinary combination of historical revisionism, mythology and hagiography.

 

Berated

At one of the rallies Dame Marguerite berated Ingraham for the way in which she felt he treated her husband after the latter left office. Missing was any reference to the effusive thanks extended to Ingraham by Sir Lynden’s oldest son Obafemi Pindling at the funeral of his father, and which Ingraham graciously declined to use in response.

What has stunned, grated on, and even enraged so many of this lament is Lady Pindling’s seemingly absolute dismissal of the degrading and vicious treatment of many Bahamians by Sir Lynden and his court during his 25-year reign.

It was a ruthless and vindictive era. Dissidents and opponents were to be destroyed. And, quite a number were destroyed.

Lukewarm supporters and half-steppers were reminded of the price of disfavor: a quick call to a bank to stop a loan, blocked access to a job or to a scholarship for a child seeking to go to college, denial of a work permit for a spouse, and a catalogue of indignities and injustices.

There was gross and constant intimidation and victimization including the callous deportation of foreign spouses resulting in exile or the ruin of Bahamian families.

Those who opposed certain policies or wrong-doings or the court’s greed and corruption were set for abuse and ridicule, including veterans of the movement like the champion of Bahamian culture Edmund Moxey and the brilliant Carlton Francis.

Francis was cruelly ridiculed by Sir Lynden from a public platform. He said of Francis who had participated in a public demonstration, “ ... And all I could see was suit!”, mocking a dying man thinned by the cancer ravaging his body.

Outstanding Bahamian educator and civil servant Leonard Archer fared even worse. After he participated in a demonstration by teachers, Lady Pindling publicly asked: “What are we going to do about Leonard Archer?” The next day he was fired by her husband “in the public interest”!

Tellingly, and of tremendous historical significance, more than half of those who formed the first majority rule government eventually left the PLP. Yet there is the laughable conceit within the PLP of its superior nationalism. It is a chauvinistic boast in a party given to all manner of chauvinism.

Even at the time when the Dissident Eight were leaving the party that they helped to build and contributed mightily to majority rule, Paul Adderley, then leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP), commented on their departure noting that the PLP was losing much of the soul of the party.

Decades later, following the death of Charles Maynard, a former PLP grandee remarked that the FNM is now the more progressive of the two major parties. Maynard’s father, Andrew ‘Dud’ Maynard, an undoubted nationalist who toiled long and hard for the PLP, recently noted that the party he once knew and supported had lost its way.

 

Corrupted

Parties of liberation and majority rule cum independence often lose their way, corrupted by temptations of extraordinary political and economic power. Examples abound across the globe. The PLP is but one example of the chauvinism and sense of entitlement that sometimes develops in such parties.

The boundaries between party and state are blurred. By example, what should be afforded an individual or a business as an opportunity arising from one’s rights as a citizen is twisted instead into a grant of favor by the party.

During the reign of Sir Lynden’s imperial court, many business people had to beg or bribe party officials for the grant of all manner of business licences and permits.

Independence leaders often become unaccountable and untouchable with their excesses dismissed. Further, the assets of the state are spoils to be divided with plundering zeal by select interests.

Soon after coming to office Sir Lynden effectively destroyed Bahamas Airways – after his own government had negotiated with a consortium including the hugely successful Cathay Pacific to make the local airline truly international. He summarily broke a prior agreement with Cathay Pacific by awarding certain routes to Bahamas World Airways, an airline conceived by his friend Everette Bannister and scoffingly referred to by many Bahamians as “the paper airline”.

In so doing he destroyed a golden opportunity for the country, resulting in the loss of an expanded local airline and causing a drain of approximately half a billion dollars from the treasury to keep Bahamasair operational.

Imagine what could have been done in terms of national development with half a billion dollars, not to mention a well-managed airline serving cities throughout the Americas. So much for being the party of superior nationalism.

The PLP did considerable work in advancing the national good. But many of the promises of majority rule were stillborn as the party abandoned a genuine nationalism for a pseudo nationalism that routinely touted and celebrated its liberation credentials even as it plunged the country into some of our darkest days.

That national nightmare involved a ‘nation for sale’ or lease to drug barons resulting in mass corruption, the destruction of scores of Bahamians who became addicted to crack cocaine or the easy money associated with the demon drug, and a ripping apart of our social fabric, from which we are still suffering up to this day.

Despite all of this, Sir Lynden and his court showed scant remorse. It is chilling and deeply disturbing still to read the Commission of Inquiry Report into this nightmarish period and to peruse some of the evidence given.

 

Oligarchy

The PLP, the supposed party of superior nationalism, is today an oligarchy of special interests which uses the rhetoric and politics of nationalism to win elections with sloganeering such as “Bahamians First”, then governs mostly in its own interest.

This is the party in which one senior PLP bragged of selling off more land than the FNM, the party of the Great Mayaguana Land Giveaway, the party in which the two top senior leaders have a clear conflict of interest with an oil exploration company.

Having militantly opposed advancing the rights of women in terms of passing on certain rights of citizenship, the party holds a special session of parliament to brag about its commitment to women and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of women attaining the right to vote.

There is a pattern here. The PLP, often quite effectively, employs the symbols and the narratives of nationalism to reinforce its credentials as the nationalist party. The FNM has often played into its hands.

Given repeated opportunities to make January 10 a national holiday, the FNM was often on the defensive, unsure of how to embrace and burnish its own commitment to a more expansive vision of the national good.

Sir Lynden and his court did not try to destroy the Dissident Eight and others in spite of who they were. The PLP tried to destroy them and to deny their nationalist credentials precisely because of who they were and what they represented.

It is a feature of the sociology of organizations, from churches to political parties, that dissidents have to be destroyed and branded as heretics and traitors when they call into question how the organization to which they were dedicated may have betrayed its ideals and the people they were committed to serving.

The old PLP lost its way long ago and the so-called ‘new PLP’ has failed to find it. The party remains dedicated to a certain chauvinism, on stark display at the recent election as the widow of the party’s longest serving leader reminded Bahamians of what it feels that the country still owes the PLP’s entitled imperial court.

September 19, 2013

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: This upcoming general election, like all others before it, will be a race of Leadership

Election will be a race of leadership


By RUPERT MISSICK Jr
Tribune242 Chief Reporter
rmissick@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, Bahamas


WE BAHAMIANS are a people of shifting anxieties. We will rend our garments because of the drought on Monday but tear out our hair because of the rain on Tuesday.

This is such a persistent state of our nature that it is strange to hear people debate which ideological issue will damn or elevate the PLP or FNM to the next government of the Bahamas.

Let's be honest, Bahamians don't choose governments based on ideology nor do they reject a government based on controversies that might plague a particular administration.

This upcoming election, like all others before it, will be a race of leadership. The public when all is said and done will decide which man, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, Opposition Leader Perry Christie or DNA leader Branville McCartney, they want to lead the country.

Many seem to believe that the sale of BTC will be the nail in the coffin for the FNM. I strongly doubt it.

The prime minister announced in March that he will close the current voters' register in June or July of this year, which is more than enough time for emotions surrounding the issue to cool or even be forgotten.

There are three rules when it comes to controversy in Bahamian politics.

The first two are:

* It is the totality of the "scandals" in an administration, not one individual issue that may cause a party to lose an election.

* If a leader appears unwilling or unable to face the challenges these "scandals" brings to his administration the bad taste will linger longer in the mouths of the public.

Issues

After the 2002 general elections there were a plethora of issues which people thought would sink the PLP. Early on it was the allegations of Mohammed Harajchi and later on it was the Korean boat scandal etceteras, etceteras.

By the time the 2007 election rolled around, however, these issues were forgotten and it still came down to who the electorate could stomach more, Perry Christie or Hubert Ingraham.

Because even if voters took into account these scandals and added the embarrassment of Anna Nicole, the money in the closet issue and the Cabinet fight and considered the PLP unpalatable, it still boiled down to how well Mr Christie handled, or didn't handle, these issues.

People wondered WWID (What Would Ingraham Do) if two of his Cabinet ministers nearly killed each other with furniture in the Churchill Building. WWID if one of the MPs of his party facilitated the commercial activities of foreigners in our fishing industry and so on and so forth.

Now, after the FNM's win in 2007 a number of issues have arisen which persons feel will work against the governing party when persons go to the ballot box.

There was the issue of Saunders Beach, the relocation of the port, the inconveniences of the New Providence Road Improvement Project, the Bell Island issue, the number of Chinese workers needed for Baha Mar and now most recently the sale of BTC.

The final truth about political controversy in the Bahamas is that if a scandal happens long enough before an election it won't be remembered and this is the main reason why issues like the BTC sale will not directly factor in a win or loss for the FNM.

Effort

By the time an election is called there will be too much happening in personal lives of the citizenry for them to expend the emotional effort to be upset about BTC.

As stated before the Prime Minister said that he will close the register in either June or July. In the end, like Mr Ingraham likes to say, only one man knows the actual day when these things are to happen, but if one were to take bets I think any date after July 11th would be safer than a date before.

Between now and July 11 there are five public holidays, and six Family Island regattas and 30 home comings and festivals on all of the major islands, including New Providence.

By that time Bahamians will already be used to the idea of being a customer of Cable and Wireless. I mean if you really think about it people were upset but not upset enough to put down their cell phones or blackberries to boycott the company.

Even after the voters' register is closed it stands to reason that there will be at least another 11 to 10 months before elections are called and thus far there is no reason which is readily apparent for the prime minister not to wait until May 2 of 2012 for the election to be called.

All this considered I am not fully convinced that the majority of Bahamians, particularly the tech-sensitive younger generation who were either used to the telecom services they enjoyed while away in school or hearing their friends abroad boasting the benefits of their 4G networks, cared that the company was being sold.

Even one of the union leaders involved in the protests against the sale of BTC, NCTUB President, Jennifer Isaacs-Dotson admitted that the movement lacked sideswiping national support.

"I don't think we really rallied behind the unions and BTC and all of the committees that came forward to lead that change. I still think that Bahamians are still very selfish and that Bahamians will have to realize that one day it's BTC and the next day it could be you, but we always pass the buck and say it's not happening to me," she told The Nassau Guardian.

There is always the temptation of believing that just because we and our friends are outraged about something that the whole world is up in arms. For better or for worse this is only the case some of the time.

To think that the upcoming election will be more about a fight is terribly naive at best and at worst shows a woeful or wilful lack of understanding of our culture.

In 1992 the country wanted less corrupt leadership so they chose a man who billed himself as a no-nonsense, liar-hating, mean what I say, say what I mean "delivery boy."

In 2002 when the country felt that the FNM was more concerned about infrastructure than the "poor man" they chose the son of a taxi driver and nurse who promised "help and hope."

In 2007 when the country felt that things were getting out of control and the nation was returning to the days of lecherous and corrupt public officials they wanted the return of a leader who would kick butt and take names later.

Now as 2012 approaches the desire of the FNM to frame the next election debate around leadership is obvious. As a matter of fact if it boils down to that, I believe it is a fight the FNM can win.

For all his faults Mr Ingraham and his team have done well to drill it in the public's mind that Mr Christie may have started the construction of the Straw Market, the Baha Mar deal, the New Providence Road Improvement Programme and the new airport, but he was not strong or decisive enough to finish it.

The PLP would do well to avoid a toe-to-toe battle on these issues.

However, they seem to be on the edge of a strategy that may work, but they are simply just standing on the edge. They are beginning to tell the public that Mr Ingraham lacks compassion, that the FNM is really the Foreign National Movement, but this talk will only amount to sloganeering if Mr Christie isn't a factor in their strategy.

They seem to forget that the last impression Mr Christie left the public with when he left office wasn't that he was kind and caring, but that he was indecisive and permissive.

What they should do is have Mr Christie explain what he would have done differently if he were in office. From Mona Vie right down to BTC explain Mr Ingraham's missteps and say what he would have done differently if he were in office.

Debate

The former Prime Minister missed a golden opportunity to do this during debate on the sale of BTC. Instead of focusing on what he saw as odious in the sale of BTC to CWC and explaining what he would have done differently he was out-manoeuvred by the FNM and spent most of his contribution explaining why Bluewater was the choice of his administration and answering criticism that his weak leadership almost caused BTC to be put in the hands of a less than desirable company.

Mr Christie's latest pronouncements of having the government backtrack on the port and BTC deal if he returns to office will please Mr Christie's base, but it makes swing and more moderate voters uneasy.

While my cynicism won't permit me to believe that Mr McCartney's DNA will stand a chance in the next election, the former FNM MP is obviously leaning on his greatest appeal as a prospective leader -- he is not Mr Christie nor is he Mr Ingraham.

There is a segment of the population that says they are weary of the Ingraham vs Christie battle, but that's what they say.

Mr McCartney has a Herculean task of trying to convert this type of public sentiment into actual ballots in the box. His victory depends too much on this for a reasonable person to think that his victory is assured.

He has to attract enough disaffected PLPs, enough disaffected FNMs and enough swing voters not only to win his seat, but to get the other members of his prospective party in the House of Assembly.

In his latest press release Mr McCartney compared the likelihood of his victory to the victory of Barack Obama in that many did not believe that Mr Obama - being black - could win the race against John McCain because America could not get beyond its historical racism enough to elect an African American president.

Of course Mr Obama won and now Mr McCartney uses this example to explain how it might be possible that he could become the next Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Change

Mr McCartney's idea that there is so much thirst for change that his DNA will be able to tap into the zeitgeist and disrupt the two-party system in the Bahamas is a non-starter.

The circumstances that gave the people of Egypt enough courage and determination to remove President Hosni Muhammad Mubarak - which he also mentions in the press release - does not exist here.

And while it was an amazing achievement for the United States to elect Mr Obama, the US President did not go into the election without base support.

He is a black man, yes, but he is also the leader of one of the two major political parties in the country which he serves.

Nevertheless, Mr McCartney is doing what is smartest. He is using leadership as his platform. He is the only candidate who can truly boast that he is in fact new leadership.

There are many who decry the fact that politics in the Bahamas generally boils down to a cult of personality and does not depend enough on the issues.

But the Bahamas is not unique in this. In the United States business man and reality TV show star Donald Trump heads the field of potential Republican contenders while more sober choices like Mitt Romney are further down in the polls.

Like Sara Palin before him, Mr Trump's greatest attraction is his larger than life persona - it's hard to see what else qualifies him to be the leader of the free world.

As time goes on you can expect that the political campaigns will get increasingly personal with candidates attacking the various leaders and highlighting the inability of the leader opposite to rescue the economy, reign in rogue MPs and put a handle on crime.

This is because most politicians recognize what is apparent, that Bahamian elections are not ideological battles but are arguments over who will make the best king.

April 18, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International