Leadership and the general election

Tue, Apr 10th 2012, 08:59 AM

The 2012 general election is fast approaching. The decisive factor in the outcome will be that of leadership. This will be a contest between the leadership of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and Leader of the Opposition Perry Christie.
The role played by the fledgling Democratic National Alliance will not be fully known until the ballots are counted. Still, the likelihood of the party forming the next government and of its leader being sworn in as prime minister is next to nil.
This is likely to be the last general election contest for the current PLP and FNM leaders as head of their respective parties. The two men have a long history, both personally and in terms of their over three decades on the political stage.
Christie and Ingraham entered frontline politics around the same time. They are longstanding friends having shared a law partnership for a number of years. Both served in the Cabinet of Sir Lynden Pindling. And, both were fired by Sir Lynden because of their disgruntlement over allegations of high-level corruption related to the drug trade and the Pindling administration.
In the 1987 general election, the fired ministers ran as independents and each won his constituency. Their re-election was a rebuke to Sir Lynden and to the PLP machine which sought to crush them politically. Thereafter, their political journeys took them in separate directions.
Ingraham joined the FNM succeeding Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield as the party's Leader. In the 1992 general election he toppled Sir Lynden, his political mentor. In 1997 he again defeated the PLP in a crushing defeat after which Sir Lynden retired from frontline politics. That year, the FNM won every Family Island seat except that of Sir Lynden's in South Andros.
Perry Christie made a different choice. He returned to the PLP eventually succeeding Sir Lynden as leader. In the 2002 general election the PLP crushed the FNM winning every seat in New Providence except Montagu. Christie's PLP was given a huge majority in the House of Assembly.
In 2007, the former law partners met head on in an election contest which was close in terms of the popular vote and relatively close in the number of seats each secured in the lower house. Despite the relative closeness of the vote it was a significant swing away from the majority enjoyed by the Christie-led PLP.
When the erstwhile political allies battled in 2007 for what is considered the ultimate prize in elected politics, Ingraham bested Christie, who became the first one-term prime minister in an independent Bahamas.
Then as now, the paramount issue for voters is that of leadership. Elections are contests of contrast and comparison. In 2002 few voters knew how Christie might perform as prime minister. But an overwhelming majority was willing to give him a chance as the leader of what he described as a "new PLP".
Finally, nearly 60, Christie was given a significant mandate to put into effect his vision for the country, and to redeem a PLP voted out in disgrace a decade earlier. After a single term, a majority of voters rejected the leadership of Christie and his "new PLP" in favor of Ingraham, and the FNM that had been overwhelmingly defeated five years earlier.
In the head-to-head between the two men, most voters demonstrated a preference for the leadership of Hubert Ingraham.

In 2012, leadership will again be the dominant issue. To be sure, issues related to the economy and crime will be of great importance.
But when more independent voters go to the polls, the issues of the day are typically connected to which leader and party they believe will best tackle the issues of concern to them and their families.
The relative love, dislike or lukewarm feelings voters may have towards current leaders plays a role in electoral contests. But in the end, voters make a calculated bet on who they believe will govern best given the choices before them.
Voters will choose which leader and party they best believe can tackle the issues related to the economy and crime. The overwhelming majority of voters have watched the performance of Ingraham and Christie as prime minister.
They will decide which man they believe has the better judgment, who can best lead and discipline their Cabinet, and is best at crisis management. Judgments will be made on the quality of the leadership abilities and the quality of vision of the two men in terms of policies and programs, work ethic and the fulfillment of past manifesto promises.
Some voters will always be more enticed by future promises. But today, those who may decide the election will be looking at past performance as an indicator of how the next head of government will perform in office.
Sir Lynden's memory has been invoked in the lead-up to the general election. It is a mixed memory. There is great regard for his contributions to national development as well as distasteful memories left behind after his 25-year rule.
The two men vying to lead the country will likely be the last of the men who sat in Sir Lynden's Cabinet, the last of his protégées, who will serve as prime minister. While some may recall the memory of Sir Lynden, whether in a positive, negative or mixed manner, it is not his record or legacy that is primarily at stake. History will render that judgment.
But one of the final chapters in the political histories of Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham is soon to be written. The next general election will make an extraordinary difference in how those histories are ultimately judged and written.
frontporchguardian@gmail.com
www.bahamapundit.com

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads