Spectrum Rewind: Election 2012 pt. 2
The eleventh-hour twist that no one saw coming.
Like I said before, these guys needed another article for me to properly discuss my sentiments. Even three years later, it's still difficult to judge the Democratic National Alliance's performance in the last General Election. There are good arguments on both sides: some will say that the DNA failed, having none of their 38 candidates elected as Members of Parliament and having lost their only seat in parliament. Others will look on the brighter side and say that 13,000 votes in a party's first year of activity is impressive in our polarized political climate. A good number of those people will also immediately counter any suggestion that the DNA could’ve done any better, especially given the time crunch they were under to execute a multi-million dollar campaign.
I am not one of those people. Although I was sufficiently satisfied with the DNA's efforts in their infancy, if they try a similar pitch again for 2017, I don't think they should expect to come anywhere close to their goal of governance.
In case we've forgotten, the DNA launched in grand fashion and to critical acclaim. Branville McCartney couldn't eat a bowl of cereal for breakfast without a Nassau Guardian reporter making it front-page news. I vividly remember attending their well-organized function on a cool night in May. The feeling in the air when McCartney finally ascended the stage was nothing short of electric; it is obvious that at this time the support for the DNA was at its peak. Polls were conducted left right and center, and all suggested that The Bahamian people were ready for a third party government.
Long story short, they weren’t.
The DNA did not win a seat last election. Their percentage of the popular vote was barely north of 8%, a far cry away from their staggering numbers of a year ago. The sad truth was that the DNA never managed to recapture the delirious enthusiasm that got everyone talking about the party in the first place. With just a year's worth of preparation, I will salute the DNA for almost mounting a serious campaign, but 'almost' doesn't win elections. In the end, The DNA lacked the kind of cohesiveness necessary to make their campaign a winning effort. Serious political advertising is not ambiguous, and The DNA’s advertising was.
Let me show you what I mean through a re-visit of their first advertisement of the 2012 election season. I spoke about it in my first spectrum rewind article, but I want to draw your attention to a few key phrases. After setting the tone in the first half of the ad, DNA leader Branville McCartney says:
"Change means change - A change in ownership, a change in direction, and a change in leadership. Only the Democratic National Alliance can shed light on real change for one Bahamas."
As much as I like the idea of change being a multi-dimensional activity, I can't be the only one left with more questions than answers when this ad is done. What do they mean by ownership? Who owns what now? Who does the DNA want to own what? What direction will the DNA take us in? Is there some kind of new leadership style that they will provide? Was that "for one Bahamas" supposed to be a pun on the DNA's 'number one' hand sign? The list goes on and on.
If it sounds like I'm nitpicking, so be it. Viewers should never be left with questions after an ad is finished, let alone more than one. If the DNA's idea was to present an abridged version of their plan in the commercial, then, naturally, there must be a link to the full plan at the end, even if it's just a simple call-out to their website. It is simply a matter of polish, but as it turned out, this was the only ad aired on TV that even remotely hinted at any kind of DNA plan. That compounded their problem even further. Can you imagine what a voter who had no interaction with the party (never went to a rally, never went to their website, never read their plans etc), would have thought? I wouldn't be surprised if many would-be voters found the DNA's message insultingly generic. Honestly, had I not made an effort to go to a few of their events, I might have arrived at the same conclusion.
I think it’s clear that behind the crisp production value of the green team's commercials was a lack of marketing personnel or focus. It was almost as if the DNA was determined to meet some pre-existing quota of commercials, for no other reason than “that’s what political parties are supposed to do”. I'm sure that the higher-ups within the DNA thought that their message was bullet proof, but that belief is precisely the problem I’m speaking about - the DNA should've been targeting everyone BUT those that were already on their side.
There are several things the DNA can do to fix this for 2017, but it all starts with a new mindset. Unless the leadership of the party comes to understand that it is not what you tell voters, it's how they can understand it, then the party is doomed for a repeat of 2012. As stated in the first part of this series of articles, the PLP won the election because they knew that "Believe in Bahamians" was completely focused on the average voter. It made you feel inspired, and it was a statement that everyone regardless of political affiliation could agree with. The FNM lost the election the moment they lost sight of how the multitude of disillusioned voters would respond to their rigid "we deliver" message.
When you put the DNA's "Real change for One Bahamas" next to the slogans of the big boys, the party sticks out like a big green thumb. The phrase that the DNA chose to be their mantra was neither liberating nor boastful, it was simply floating in space, too ambiguous to hit home with any Tom, Dick or Harry playing dominoes on the corna’ every Sunday. I really believe that it was a mistake.
But, mistakes happen. The DNA is young and poised to take advantage of these extra years before their second election, but they're running out of time to make a big splash. Soon, it will be time to register to vote. The hard work must start now (if it hasn't begun already). I genuinely hope that the DNA is not still enamored with the word ‘change’, or convinced beyond reason that the word will resonate with the electorate. Personally, I’ve always considered it a one-trick pony that lost its value somewhere around the time Barack Obama was sworn in as President. The DNA can be assured that whatever little utility ‘change’ had left was used up during the most colorful election in modern Bahamian history.
The proof is in the votes.
