Bahamians were rightly outraged by member of Parliament Richard Lightbourn's suggestion that Bahamian women with more than two children tie their tubes. The statement was insensitive and crude. However, the fact that the comment was aired from a podium during the FNM's national convention reflected poorly on the leadership of the party.
I do not believe that Richard Lightbourn meant any harm by his statement; but intention or not, harm he did cause. To his credit, he quickly apologized for his error and did so with apparent sincerity. That is not common in politics, not home or abroad. It was also appropriate for the party to have issued a statement on the matter distancing itself from the comments and doing so quickly.
However, the FNM convention made a huge blunder in allowing Lightbourn's comment to find wings in its official ceremonies. The FNM, like all established political parties, is a national entity that should have a cohesive platform or policy position on major issues. Therefore, when a speaker presents from a podium during a convention or rally, the speeches are usually vetted to ensure they comply with the party's policies.
While every effort is made to give speakers room to express their ideas, their views must line up with the party's platform or policies. This is especially true for sitting parliamentarians, candidates and perspective candidates. Such persons are holders of the party's franchise and should operate within the rules, guidelines and policies of the party. If they don't, then the Lightbourn tube-tying effect is what they get.
The question then is, was Lightbourn's speech vetted and vetted by whom? If it was not vetted, why not? If it was not vetted, then the leadership of the party has to share some of the blame for this blunder. If the speech was vetted, then why was the comment left in? If it was left in by mistake that suggests that the leadership lacks the ability, at least in this instance, to attend to important details? Anyone reading that comment in today's Bahamas would know that it was grossly out of step with where we are as a people and offensive to the people, particularly women, of this nation. To overlook such a hugely controversial statement might speak volumes to what else might be overlooked going forward or in government, should the party win. Ours is a fickle electorate; little things, much less big things, can be huge in influencing how they vote.
I have spoken to many FNM conventions and each time I was required to submit my remarks for vetting. Even the national media, namely ZNS, had an interest in vetting remarks. Yes, when they had a monopoly on media they did it to allow the PLP government to have an early look at what the opposition proposed to say. But they also did the vetting to protect themselves against libel, slander, defamation and the like.
When I spoke at conventions, including my first one in 1991, I recall having the party's leadership, yes, Hubert A. Ingraham, the leader of the opposition himself, call me up to discuss some points that I had in my address. The discussions were mostly about some points that did not accurately reflect the party's policies. This is how it ought to be because in the end, those who carry the banner of the party carry the banner of the party and not their own.
Perhaps Richard's situation will provide some lessons to those who lead the parties. One lesson being that the hard and unsexy work of leadership often times requires paying attention to seemingly mundane details outside of the spotlight of public and media scrutiny; that this diligent work makes it possible for the party to shine more brightly and without shame in that spotlight. Perhaps another lesson might be that the same energy poured into winning political battles for party leadership should be poured into crafting party policies that win the political war at the national level. A competent leadership will ensure that proper vetting of remarks and all the other necessary things are done to put forward the right message, image and policies for the wooing and uplifting of the Bahamian people and our Bahamaland.

o Zhivargo Laing is a Bahamian economic consultant and former Cabinet minister who represented the Marco City constituency in the House of Assembly.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian