"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Last week Prime Minister Perry Christie announced that he will lead the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) into the next election for two reasons: because some of the young members of his government want him to stay, and because his remaining in office will be a stabilizing force for the PLP.
Several persons took grave exception to Christie's pronouncements. Therefore, this week, we would like to Consider this... Are the stated reasons sufficiently compelling for Christie to lead the PLP into the next general election and are they believable?

What did Christie actually say?
During the radio show "Ed Fields Live" last Monday, the prime minister said that he seeks to continue leading the PLP into the next general election because, in his words, "I have enough young people who are a part of my government who have asked me to stay on." He continued, "My leadership provides stability on my side. You see what instability means when you look at the [official] opposition, and I daresay that this could happen when I demit office as well."

The expectation of change
Before the general election in 2012, Christie created the expectation that, if elected, he would consider stepping down as party leader mid-term and would name a successor. He subsequently said that his intention to step down mid-term was "misconstrued" and that he intended to serve out the full term if elected.
In January 2015, he declared that it would take "a compelling, tangible reason for him to lead the party into the next general election". Then, in September 2015, Christie reneged on his pledge to demit office at the end of this term and declared that it was his intention "to go into the PLP convention [slated for November last year] as leader and to emerge as leader". This clearly means that he intends to serve again as prime minister for another term. Anyone who doubted that was disabused by Christie's recent assertions on "Ed Fields Live".

The bridge to the future
In 1997 when Christie was first elected leader of the PLP, he characterized himself as "the bridge to the future". Fifteen years later, during the 2012 general election campaign, he reinforced the notion that he was preparing for succession by nominating young, new candidates who would be able to succeed him.
That bridge, however, has become somewhat unstable and in some cases has splintered. Since Christie became prime minister, the PLP has lost some of those "young, bright minds" who were profiled during the elections as critical to the leadership transitional process. Two of his young ministers (Ryan Pinder and Damian Gomez) resigned, and three other fresh PLP members of Parliament (Gregory Moss, Renward Wells and Dr. Andre Rollins) left the party, the former to form his own party and the latter two to join the Official Opposition Free National Movement (FNM). Some observers can reasonably surmise that the bridge to the future has demonstrated signs of deteriorating disintegration.
A majority of those who left either the government or the PLP in Parliament have pointed to problems with the party leadership as one reason for their departure.
Enough persons have asked me to stay
During the "Ed Fields Live" interview, the prime minister noted that "enough young people who are in my government have asked me to stay on". The important question is just who are those young people who are asking him to stay? Is it a majority of persons, or are they few in number? On Friday, the speaker of the House of Assembly categorically contradicted this by confirming that he was not one of those persons who asked the prime minister to stay on.
None of the young, first-time members of Parliament have come forward; so it begs the important question of precisely who are these young persons who have asked the prime minister to stay?
It is generally felt in the public domain that some of those who desire the prime minister to stay do so primarily for selfish reasons. They either want to ensure that they preserve their "privileged" positions or they resolutely rely on the PM's succor to sustain their status. Some have never earned as much as they now do and others certainly will not receive the obsequious obeisance that they enjoy from adorning themselves with the title of "honorable".

The question of stability
The prime minister suggested that if he were not to lead the party into the next election, and demitted office instead, the PLP could become unstable in a similar manner that has occurred with the FNM.
Very few Bahamians, except die-hard sycophants, accept that view. In fact, given his performance and approval rating with the electorate, there is serious concern that Christie has become a drag on the PLP for the next elections.
In response to the question of stability, it should be remembered that the PLP has undergone enormous challenges in the past and, on each and every occasion, has not become unstable.
The PLP reached one of its lowest ebbs after the Commission of Inquiry to investigate drug trafficking in the 1980s, which greatly contributed to the PLP's defeat at the polls in 1992. Even in the face of such defeat, the party did not become unstable.
Christie's assertion about his departure and the ensuing instability that could result therefrom is uninformed by the historical record and unsupported by today's political realities and perceptions.
In fact, the corollary is more accurate. There is a considerable body of opinion that the PLP's chances of securing the government in 2017 will greatly increase with new leadership, precisely because the Bahamian electorate is exhausted with the current leadership. Recent polling data, the details of which we will not disclose, supports this position.

Tired of business as usual
Bahamians are as weary of the same old politicians, many of whom do not possess any workable solutions to the enormous challenges we face, with no vision of where to lead us, as they are of empty political promises upon which they fail to deliver.
People are tired of the level of disconnection of our leaders from the electorate. This is borne out in the various attempts by disaffected, disgruntled and disappointed groupings who are groping to find people who can lead The Bahamas further into the 21st century. Just last week, we witnessed the formation of another political interest group that complained about the deplorable political state in which we find ourselves and expressed the possibility of forming yet another political party. Very many Bahamians are exhausted with political business as usual.

It's all about the team
If the PLP is going to win the next election, it will have to build a team of persons who can inspire and convince Bahamians that they have the vision, foresight and ideas to address the seemingly insoluble challenges that they encounter in their daily lives. The PLP will have to deliberately focus on the strength of the team, which transcends the importance of the leader.
Gone are the days of the maximum leader who is expected to have all the answers to our problems. Gone are the days when political parties can look to the leader alone to provide stability for the ship of state. Increasingly, it is more about the team, as opposed to the leader of the team.

Conclusion
If the PLP wins the next general election, then a successor to the party's leader must be identified as early as possible, and orderly transitional arrangements must be implemented. If the PLP is unsuccessful, the party must immediately hold a leadership convention, as it did in April 1997, to select a new leader, one who will be able to rebuild and prepare the party for the rest of the very challenging, yet promising, 21st century.
In either case, Christie's long and winding bridge to the future is leading to its final destination.

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