The Not PLP
Well, that was fast.
"A picture is worth a thousand words" has proven itself true once again. In the time between the release of my preview graphic for this piece and now, it seems that I have more than one pissed off FNM (who probably won’t take the time to read my explanation) after me. While I’m aware that we live in an age where we’re supposed to precede controversial content with a “please don’t get offended” note, I have no interest in numbing democracy for the easily affronted. Plus, disclaimers are just no fun. What I will clarify is that I didn’t make this picture to start a rumor that Mr. Ingraham is coming back into politics, and I didn’t do it because I have an overwhelming urge to talk about the retired former PM either. I did it so that with or without my commentary, a discussion could be born on social media over a very legitimate question:
What is the FNM without the PLP?
It was 2010. I was sitting in front of the TV watching ZNS cover a political rally in the Elizabeth constituency. The Right Honorable Hubert Ingraham ascended the podium and urged a strong crowd of red shirted supporters to support Dr. Duane Sands in the impending by-election. I will never forget his passionate plea to PLP supporters, some of whom were attending another function just down the street. "I am far more PLP than they are... PLPs, come with me!" Of course, Ingraham was referring to his past political allegiance with the PLP, before being bounced out of the party by Sir Lynden Pindling. The speech didn't seem to be congruent with Ingraham's determination to position his party as the exact opposite of the PLP, the anti-PLP if you will. What it did do however, was suggest that Ingraham still agreed with the philosophy of the PLP in principle, but no longer in practice. For reference, you can hear a part of the speech here.
Fast forward to March 2015. The FNM lost the election nearly three years ago and has now begun to move forward in the post-Ingraham era. FNM leader Dr. Hubert Minnis and DNA leader Branville McCartney are issued a challenge by Prime Minister Perry Christie to what appears to be a political debate. While McCartney hastily accepted, Dr. Minnis did not. He did not say “not at this time”. He did not say “let’s try closer to the election”. His response was “I am by far more interested in removing him than a debate”.
Starting to a see a pattern?
We all know the barebones of how the Free National Movement was formed. In the early stages of their development they were known as “the Free PLP”, an appropriate name since they were founded by eight PLP MPs that fled their party back in the 70s. Basic research also shows that the FNM has mounted more than one election campaign on the principles of trust, honesty and deliverance. The implication in the phrase "it's a matter of trust" was that you can trust the FNM because you cannot trust the PLP. You can expect the FNM to be honest because the PLP is dishonest. You can expect an FNM government to deliver because the PLP government did not. I’m not sure about you, but based on their history and slogans, I think the FNM's appeal seems to have always been based on how much they are not like their sworn enemy. That’s not just astounding after 40 years, it’s ironic.
Don’t get me wrong, some brands in the world are able to position themselves based on their competitors with great success. For example, the generally accepted alternative to Coke is Pepsi. Pepsi originally called themselves 'Pepsi-Cola', which was to get consumers to associate them with the Coca-Cola they were already drinking. I question whether this approach is effective in politics or even good for a democracy. No republican says that the GOP of the United States is the anti-Democratic party. To say so would give the Democrats too much power. The GOP is the GOP. The Dems are the Dems. They are on opposite sides of the U.S. political spectrum and frequently call each other out, but they are not defined by each other. Why then does the FNM insist on defining themselves relative to the PLP?
Despite the fact that we now have three major political parties, only two have ever been the government. While the philosophical difference is clear between the GOP and the Dems, I can't find as many clear differences between the PLP and the FNM. The name Progressive Liberal Party obviously suggests a leftist political position, but the name Free National Movement says virtually nothing. Some supporters of the FNM seem to take great pride in saying "we een like them PLPs", as if the thought of being too much like them would be enough to keep them awake at night.
I doubt this is healthy for those supporters or for our country. I want what is good for The Bahamas, and that might mean more separation in our political choices by any means necessary. The question “what is the FNM without the PLP” will persist as long as the FNM doesn’t make it a point to give us an answer. One thing is certain, if our only choices are "PLP" and "not PLP", then Houston, we have a problem.
