"It may be assumed as an axiom that Providence has never gifted any political party with all of political wisdom or blinded it with all of political folly." - John George Nicolay

Political parties have dotted the Bahamian political landscape for more than 60 years. During that time, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is the only party that has consistently remained on the political scene.

In recent years, the PLP has been transformed into a shadow of its original incarnation. In fact, some would suggest that, were he to return to visit the nation that he "fathered", Sir Lynden Pindling would not recognize the party that he led for more than four decades.

The other major political party, the Free National Movement (FNM), is an amalgamation of the Free PLP and the United Bahamian Party (UBP). Shortly after Majority Rule in 1967, eight PLP members of parliament, known as "the dissident eight", lost faith in and sought to extricate themselves from what they considered to be the autocratic leadership of Sir Lynden, describing themselves as "Free PLPs".

The FNM has also undergone radical transformations since its formation in the early 1970s. Its founders and former leaders, including Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield and Sir Kendal Isaacs, were they to return, would also wonder what happened to the party that they initially formed. Therefore, this week we would like to Consider This... is there a need to reform our political parties?

Established in 1953 by William Cartwright, Cyril Stevenson, and Henry Milton Taylor, the PLP was the first national political party in The Bahamas to have members elected to the House. It was also a populist or nationalistic party that articulated the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the majority of Bahamians who were excluded from enjoying all the benefits that this country offered.

Party constitutions
The PLP and FNM have written constitutions that are intended to outline the basis on which they operate. Both political parties have a party leader, the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party; a secretary-general, who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings; a treasurer, who is responsible for membership dues; and a chairman, who formulates strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings.

Party conventions
Both political parties are required by their constitutions to hold regular conventions. The PLP's constitution mandates that they should be held annually, either in October or November. Notwithstanding that requirement, the last PLP convention was held in 2009.The FNM convention, which should be held every two years, convened last year, at which time party officers were elected.

Party conventions are designed to report to delegates about what has transpired in the party since its last meeting and to charge party supporters, candidates and others, motivating them about the Party's message and to spread the "gospel" about the wonderful things that the Party would do for the country if allowed to form the government. Also at convention, all party offices become vacant and anyone can offer to fill the vacancy. This exercise becomes extremely important as general elections approach.

Electing party leaders - stacking the deck
The manner in which we select our party leaders leaves much to be desired. In reality, there are very few persons who elect the party leader. In the PLP, the total number of delegates at a convention would not normally exceed 2,000 persons and in the case of the FNM, it would not exceed 460 delegates including 60 Meritorious Council Members.

The PLP constitution requires that the leader needs a super majority to win that office, whereas the FNM's leader needs a simple majority. Therefore, in the case of the PLP and FNM, just over 1,000 and 235 delegates, respectively, can determine who will become the country's prime minister. We submit that serious consideration should be given to this method of choosing our leaders. Over the years, we have observed that party leaders have "stacked the deck" in their favor, by appointing party stalwarts who the leaders believe will vote for them at convention.

When Sir Lynden left the PLP after leading the party from 1956 to 1997, a period of 41 years, we are reliably informed that there were no more than 250 Stalwart Councilors.

Since Christie became Leader of the PLP 18 years ago, the list of Stalwart Councilors has bloated to nearly 2,000. While this practice is critically important to the leader because it is safe to assume that if they vote at convention, persons who are appointed as Stalwart Councilors generally owe a debt of gratitude to the leader who was instrumental in getting them appointed to the National General Council, does it really augur well for the democratic process?

While the number of Meritorious Council Members in the FNM is significantly smaller than the PLP, the principle obtains. Stalwarts are more likely to support the leader who effected their appointment.

Deserving the government we get
In addition to the foregoing, we do not directly elect the prime minister; constitutionally, he is "...the leader of the party which commands the support of the majority of the members of that House".

By voting for his party's candidates, we indirectly elect the prime minister, who himself is selected by a very small number of party loyalists, often staunchly and blindly devoted to him. It is therefore incumbent that the leaders of both parties make every effort to recruit and select the best and brightest candidates, many of whom, if elected, will serve in the executive branch of government.

Most people will agree that this has not recently been the practice. In many instances, both political parties have selected some standard-bearers who either do not have the intelligence quotient to serve in the executive or who can be easily manipulated by their leader, to whom the candidate or member owes his loyalty if he is to continue to receive the Leader's support.

We have seen instances in both parties where the leader or his minions, using veiled and sometimes overt threats, provoke alienation in those followers who don't fall in line, even in the face of enduring the dissatisfaction or, worse, the fury of the leader. This does not augur well for the state of the nation, as can be seen by the many failings, mistakes, missteps and miscellaneous inane decisions and comments made by some of those persons of whom we speak.

Party platforms
Party platforms are essential to informing the electorate about the policies that the party plans to implement if elected. Over the years, both political parties have provided a plethora of promises that it plans to implement if elected, many of which, in hindsight, are either unrealistic or unachievable, or both.

Needed reform
If we are going to develop a truly vibrant democracy, several proactive measures must be taken. First, political parties should comply with their constitutions. If they are required to meet annually, it is incomprehensible why the leadership of any party should allow six years to pass without being subjected to serious sanctions.

Secondly, the practice of stacking the decks with stalwarts in order to secure their votes in a leadership race at the party's convention must cease. Such practices ensure the survival of a leader whose time might have long passed, creating a serious impediment for urgently needed change to occur in the interest of advancing the democratic process. It also blocks the opportunity for other, sometimes more qualified candidates to rise to the leadership. This could have a potentially devastating effect on the party and the country.

Third, leaders must have the confidence to ensure that the parties that they lead select the best standard-bearers. The party and its leaders must be ever mindful that the cabinet will be formed mostly from elected persons and that the quality of the cabinet will largely depend on the quality of candidates that are nominated by the parties.

Fourth, political parties must resist the tendency to offer candidates who do not understand the Party's core values and philosophy. However, if they are elected, such candidates must commit to being guided by those values.
Fifth, political parties must resist the temptation to publish unrealistic and unattainable promises in their platforms simply to win votes. In hindsight, we now clearly see that this practice, in the last general election, has not served our nation well.

Conclusion
The enormous disappointment and disaffection expressed by so many citizens today could undermine the political process. Some citizens are completely turned off by politics and politicians on both sides of the political divide. The level of voter indifference, manifested by persons vowing that they will no longer participate in the democratic process, is at an all-time high.

At this turning point in our political history, political parties still have a unique opportunity to reverse this malaise of apathy. They must first fully appreciate the need for reform and then boldly and decisively make the necessary changes needed to become vibrant and relevant again.

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