It has now been nearly two and a half years since the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) won the general elections on May 7, 2012. Since then, the government has sought to fulfill an ambitious legislative, social and economic agenda.
During the time that has elapsed, there have been some successes, but there have also been mistakes and missteps which a government, some of whose members served before, could - and should - have avoided. Indeed, the prime minister frequently reminds us that he has served in Parliament for more than 40 years; therefore it is surprising that several politically amateurish mistakes have occurred on his government's watch.
Normally at the mid-term, political pundits and observers attempt to grade a government's performance, some with a view to analytically assessing that performance to date, others to criticize for criticism's sake. While others will engage in the latter objective, we are more interested in the former, principally to gauge the temperature of the electorate at mid-term.
Few objective observers would agree that the government has done a remarkably impressive job to date. More would concur that there is a general malaise that Bahamians are now experiencing at the mid-term of the PLP government, with some expressing disappointment, dissatisfaction, disillusionment and even disgust with the present government.
Therefore this week, we would like to Consider this...On the heels of what has been described as an electoral landslide, why are so many Bahamians expressing hate in their eyes and hurt in their hearts for the present government's performance to date?
The "landslide" illusion
The government often refers to its "landslide" victory in the 2012 general elections. By no stretch of the most creative concoction can anyone honestly suggest that the PLP achieved a landslide victory. One has only to review the election results to appreciate the fallacy of that assertion. A dispassionate review of the 2012 election results reflects the following:
The PLP did not win an absolute majority of the votes cast. In fact, the party won approximately 49 percent of the votes cast in that election, thereby handing it a minority mandate
The FNM received 42 percent of the popular vote, and the DNA polled nine percent, which means that a majority, 51 percent, voted against the PLP
Even more revealing, there were two seats where the PLP won with a razor-slim margin of less than 25 votes, six seats where the PLP edged out by less than 100 votes and 11 seats where the party prevailed by less than 200 votes
Those sobering statistics, particularly in a 38-seat Parliament, should be immensely instructive because there were 19 seats where the PLP won by less than 200 votes and eight of those seats where the PLP won by less than 100 votes.
The brutally honest conclusion: there are very few seats that the governing PLP occupies what are considered "safe" seats, and the political pendulum can quickly swing in the opposite direction, as we have seen in the last three elections.
The most important question that any one of those 19 sitting members of Parliament should be asking is: "What have I done lately to improve my standing with my constituents?" The answer to that question would be very revealing.
Given, therefore, the results of the last elections, what accounts for the general malaise confronting the governing party and what can be done to reverse the sentiments of so many who presently experience hate in their eyes and hurt in their hearts for the present government?
Expectations and performance
The PLP came to victory on a wave of high, and, some would say, unrealistic expectations. Because of the anemic economic circumstances that The Bahamas experienced since 2008 in the wake of the Great Recession, high unemployment and a political platform that contained promises that were difficult to achieve in the current economic climate, Bahamians, who are known for their impatience with politicians on both sides of the political divide, have begun murmuring in many quarters. That the governing party has not been able to deliver on many of its promises, has resulted in hate and hurt in quarters that expand partisan and socio-economic interests.
I'll get back to you later
One of the most prevalent criticisms of many politicians is the instantaneous amnesia that they suffer immediately after speaking to the voter. Bahamians, rich and poor, informed and otherwise, young and old, black and white, frequently complain about their inability to connect with their members of Parliament after their election to office.
With few exceptions, members of Parliament are either so deeply ensconced in their own sense of self-importance or too busy to return phone calls to persons whom they were elected to serve. This creates an atmosphere of inaccessibility to one's elected representative.
If, by some miraculous accident of nature, a citizen is able to connect in person, the politician will promise the world, but more often than not, deliver little to absolutely nothing to the person seeking assistance. Is there any reason that some of these same politicians who relied on their friends and workers are often accosted by hate in the eyes and hurt in the hearts of those who assisted in getting them elected in the first place?
Poorly executed decisions
No one can refute that this government has taken some tough decisions which could cost them votes, not so much because of the actual decisions taken, but because of the grossly inadequate communication regarding the rationale for those decisions. The referendum on the web shops is a classic example.
Unquestionably the time was long past for the government to deal with the existence of web shops in our society, and the government should be applauded for taking the bold decision to regulate and tax them.
However, the painful process that surrounded the execution of that decision left much to be desired. The government failed to frame the debate in terms of the urgent necessity to alter the status quo, in terms of the rightness of its resolve, the revenue needs of the country and the jurisdictional risk for failing to act.
A similar situation developed with the debate on the introduction of a value-added tax (VAT), which will become effective early next year. Again, the government failed to properly frame the debate in a way that would enable a majority of Bahamians to understand the appropriateness of its assessment, the critically urgent revenue needs of the country and the jurisdictional risk of a further downgrade by the international rating agencies for failing to increase fiscal revenue and reduce the national debt.
More recently, the government introduced legislation that will ultimately amend our constitution. While most people accept that our constitution should not discriminate on the basis of sex, the debate on the amendment was improperly framed and not conveyed in a manner to win the hearts and minds of the majority.
Until recently, the vitally important component that was sorely missing in all the aforementioned cases was a sustained educational program on the major decisions taken by the government which has resulted in the wholesale dissemination of misinformation and disinformation by opponents to the government's policies and programs.
Foreign investors vs. Bahamian entrepreneurs
The perennial complaint about the red carpet being spread out for foreign investors while young Bahamian entrepreneurs are still expected to jump through inordinately excessive bureaucratic hoops and unreasonable delays persists. There are instances where young Bahamian entrepreneurs have prepared appropriate business plans, raised the requisite funding and completed the required government applications, but are prevented week after week from realizing their business dreams, either because some persons in high places have contracted a strain of the "black crab virus" or are too busy catering to foreign investors to attend to their own countrymen.
This unresponsiveness and inaction by the political directorate has resulted in a chronic resentment and disillusionment of the established order by young Bahamian entrepreneurs who are prevented from earning their rightful place in the Bahamian economy. Like Sir Lynden and Hubert Ingraham, can the Christie administration point to a single example of economic empowerment of a young Bahamian entrepreneur? Just one!
To be continued...
In our next column, we will continue this discussion by reviewing two classes of Bahamians who are increasingly disconnected from The Bahamas, how we are building an "entitlement society", the government's continued love affair with foreign consultants, the Bahamian "Tower of Babel" syndrome, and whether it is too late for this government to reverse the growing hate in the eyes and hurt in the hearts of Bahamians who only two years ago believed in them.
o Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis and Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian