Dear Editor,

Permit me the liberty of dispensing a bit of advice to the leader of the opposition.

Sir, you must dispatch forthwith an email to your anointed candidates advising them to stay on message at all times. And in the case of your man for Fort Charlotte, make sure he acknowledges receipt and acts accordingly.

Professor Mark Humes, like his grandfather before him, has a passion for Fort Charlotte. But unlike the late patriarch, Mark lacks focus and has just a bit too much hubris for the political arena, which may be his undoing.

In a recent missive aimed, one suspects, at the man who will stand for the PLP in the constituency, the professor empties his quiver on Alfred Sears. He tortured a couple of metaphors, genuflected to scripture and seemed to have a complete misunderstanding of political protocol.

The reader is left with but two conclusions: 1. The professor is a raging hypocrite; and 2. He gets all tangled up in PLP business and just gave Perry Christie a ringing endorsement to remain as leader.

It is truly stunning that Humes appears to be endorsing the leader of the PLP, the party he is trying to defeat. He seems more ambitious for himself than for the FNM.

The professor, a Johnny-come-lately to the FNM, should be about convincing the people of Fort Charlotte why he and his leader are the right team for them. Instead he makes the case that Sears is not the right man for the PLP. And why? According to Mark it's because Sears is an ingrate who doesn't appreciate the many gifts Christie has lavished on him over the years.

Those gifts should have purchased Alfred's loyalty in perpetuity, says the man who pretends to have the moral high ground and suggests that he cares more about public service than Sears.

By this twisted logic Mark should be licking the boots of DNA Leader Bran McCartney. The green man installed Mark as chairman of his vanity party. Surely he should have remained ever loyal to McCartney.

Instead he packed his georgie-bundle and high-tailed it to the bosom of the FNM leader because he saw a chance to realize his ambition. But supposedly such ambition is only okay for Humes.

It is generally well known that Humes did not initially support Dr. Hubert Minnis and desired a different leader for the FNM. But when he saw that Minnis would win he swore fealty to the man who gave him a nomination.

The man who now pretends to be morally superior to his potential Ft. Charlotte rival is really the one who is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Minnis should not trust him in the least. Strategic thinker is not a moniker that anyone applies to Minnis and so it was a safe bet that with current MP Dr. Andre Rollins out of favor in Fort Charlotte, Minnis fell for Mark's sweet talk, hook, line and sinker.

To curry favor with Minnis, Humes attacked Rollins for criticizing his leader, many of the same criticisms Humes reportedly had. Oh what hypocrisy by a man with explosive and obvious ambition, who must believe that people can't see through his ambition. Mark is a relatively new professor (let's call him Professor Lightweight). Alfred was a tenured professor who earned a doctorate and was attorney general and minister of education (let's call him Professor Heavyweight).

Lightweight heaped scorn on Heavyweight for not criticizing Christie while he chaired The College of The Bahamas board. Lost on Lightweight was the protocol that you demit the office you hold before you intend to challenge for a higher office. Heavyweight followed that protocol.

Again, according to Humes' poor logic, perhaps he should openly criticize Minnis whenever he sees fit.

Board chairmanships are gifts from the prime minister. By contrast, the position of leader of the party is the one gift that party members bestow, and according to the rules any member with standing can challenge for it. Professor Heavyweight threw down the gauntlet.

As a newly minted member of the FNM, Professor Lightweight, if he had standing in the party, could indeed have challenged Minnis for the leadership.

Given his gargantuan ego, it's probably not a stretch to imagine that Lightweight gave some thought to a run for Minnis' job.

Professor Lightweight crossed the line when he questioned Professor Heavyweight's heart and his motives. With a straight face he quotes the Pope, hopelessly out of context, of course, but he doesn't even bother to first take the plank from his own eye. The Pope, voicing his frustration with people who invest in the weapons manufacturing industry, said "duplicity is the currency of today... they say one thing and do another".

In Lightweight's mind this is similar to the Holy Father chastising politicians for, in essence, doing exactly what Mark has just done - maligning the character of his challenger by hoping and praying that he gets defeated in the party elections, in the hope that a vanquished Sears becomes a beatable opponent in the general election.

Far be it from me to label as duplicitous Lightweight's attempt to influence the choice of shepherd for the PLP sheep. He seems to bet on Christie prevailing and a dejected Sears leaving the arena altogether.

Did Mark for one minute think he might come across as a tad disingenuous? Should he not prefer to duke it out with Sears on the great Fort Charlotte battlefield rather than rely on the outcome of the upcoming battle royal just down the way at Gambier House?

Faking the moral high ground while taking the low road, as Humes has done, will backfire. But he is perhaps too arrogant to realize the mistake he is making in order to secure his ambition.

Need I remind Professor Lightweight that the original Wolf in Sheep's clothing incantation is a warning to those who play a role in life that is contrary to their true character. The ending of that idiom is ominous: beware those wolves in sheep's clothing, particularly false teachers.

- The Graduate

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian