“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

Last week, in part 1 of this series on leadership, we observed that, notwithstanding the enormous gains that we have made as a young nation during the past 42 years, in our modern Bahamas of 2015 there is a fundamental crisis of leadership. We began by defining the concept of leadership and leadership styles, which we broadly described as autocratic, participative, laissez-faire or narcissistic. Therefore, this week, we would like to continue to Consider this… what evidence is there to support the hypothesis that we are experiencing a catastrophic crisis of political leadership?

Political leadership in The Bahamas

In the nearly 50 years since Majority Rule, only three persons have held the office of premier, pre-1969, and following the 1969 constitutional revision, prime minister. Of the various styles of leadership that we identified in part 1, those three political leaders have each demonstrated varying degrees of the types that we have cited.

Sir Lynden’s leadership style

Few historians would disagree that Sir Lynden’s leadership style represented a dichotomy: a blend of autocratic and participative leadership, depending upon the circumstances. The FNM dissidents who found it necessary to exit the PLP shortly after Majority Rule will submit that they did so because they felt that Pindling had become too powerful, adopting an autocratic persona and approach to governance.

On the other hand, some of Sir Lynden’s colleagues will also affirm that, at times, public policy was informed by building consensus amongst his cabinet and parliamentary colleagues. For example, the decision not to proceed with national youth service, which history has proven to be a mammoth mistake, resulted from the overexcited opposition of the public to the development of such a youth corps.

That Sir Lynden did not appreciate when to leave public life was the first indication of a crisis in leadership. Most objective observers would agree that he should have exited front-line politics after winning the 1987 elections, following the exposé of The Bahamas as a “Nation for sale” to the drug lords of the day. Certainly after his 1992 loss of the government over which he presided for 25 years Sir Lynden should not have led the PLP in 1997 to its worst political defeat. Clearly the people had told him to go in 1992, but he and his misguided hangers-on insisted on him returning in 1997 and, in typical Bahamian form, “those who would not listen would be made to feel” the full ire of the electorate.

Ingraham’s leadership style

Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, who would always “say what I mean and mean what I say,” has, at times, represented an autocratic leadership style, neither tolerating nonsense nor suffering fools or critics lightly. Ingraham was a strongman’s strongman, which was in great measure part of his enormous appeal to those whom he led. He knew what he wanted, did what he wanted and got what he wanted… most of the time, although he could also be persuaded to change an incorrigibly intractable position by reasoned arguments. Of the three prime ministers that we have elected, to date, Ingraham – the sole FNM prime minister – appears to be the only one who understood that it was time to go as he did before the 2002 general elections, notwithstanding that he returned as prime minister five years later.

Christie’s leadership style

By most people’s perceptions Prime Minister Christie’s leadership style appears to be the weakest compared to his predecessors in office. His style can best be described as a combination of participative and laissez-faire.

During his first term in office, Christie frequently governed by committees and commissions which he appointed to investigate and study all and sundry matters relating to national policies. This approach towards leadership ultimately secured for him the perception that he was indecisive and lacked the ability to make tough decisions, preferring instead to rely too heavily on the recommendations and findings of those committees and commissions.

In part, it was those perceived weaknesses, among other things, that led the Bahamian people to withhold a second term, making him the first one-term prime minister in Bahamian history. In his first and second non-consecutive term in office, Christie’s laissez-faire approach to his Cabinet colleagues has also earned him the ire of the electorate, gaining him a reputation of completely losing control of some of his ministers who do what they want, say what they want, whenever they want, and without impunity.

Three years and three months into his second term in office, Christie’s job performance rating and popularity are at a historically low point in Bahamian political history. Even one of his ministers has recently publically admitted that it will be very difficult for the PLP to win the next general elections. This perception is equally shared by many other cabinet colleagues who privately concur, but publicly protest agreement with this point of view.

There is also the persistent question about whether Christie will seek another term in office, although he promised that this would be his last term. Au contraire, all indications are that Christie is about to make the same mistake made by his mentor, Sir Lynden, who did not properly read the tea leaves regarding the timing of his departure from office.

A crisis of political leadership

The crisis of political leadership is accentuated by the absence of an effective official opposition, which, in light of the mistakes and missteps of the PLP, should be able to easily defeat the incumbent PLP in the next general elections. Leading up to the last elections, Ingraham had so effectively eviscerated the FNM that what now remains in parliament is an ineffective, lackluster and incompetent opposition that has not been able to garner the support of its own base, much less that of disaffected PLPs and undecided voters. This has lulled the PLP to sleep and encouraged it to do all manner of nonsense in office.

The crisis of leadership is exacerbated by the fact that the bridge to the future that Christie allegedly built, and which was buttressed on the backs of promising, young PLP leaders, not only seems to be crashing, but can better be described as the bridge to the past. The crisis of leadership is further aggravated by the reality that there appears to be no one in the PLP with the intestinal fortitude to challenge the leader, despite virtually inevitable defeat if the status quo remains. If you were a conspiracy theorist, one might surmise that the leaders of the two major political parties, in selecting their candidates, have purposefully not chosen the best and brightest or put them in the safest seats – which would ensure that, in the event of a defeat, their party would be well-represented – in order that their own longevity as leaders might be better guaranteed.

Conclusion

It should now be patently clear that The Bahamas has been, for a long time, and is currently facing a crisis of political leadership. The most significant way to overcome this crisis is to earnestly seek out and attract to the political arena qualified, well-trained and worldly Bahamians who understand what their role is as an effective parliamentarian and how our system of governance is supposed to work. It is amazing how ignorant so many of our politicians are about how the system over which they preside works.

It is equally imperative for all Bahamians to recognize that we get the government that we deserve; therefore, we must become an informed, intelligent and discerning electorate. We must also insist that the political parties provide candidates who understand that they are elected to an office of trust, that their decisions must be informed by what is in the best interests of the country, and that they not driven by their own personal, petty agendas that will not advance the common good.

Next week we will examine striking examples of the crisis of political leadership in the recent past.

• 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.