Dear Editor,

Hubert Ingraham and the Free National Movement (FNM) have tried desperately to make this political campaign a referendum on his leadership. They have attempted to compare his leadership record and style to that of Perry Christie's. All things being equal it may have worked; apparently it did work in 2007. We now have a track record of both leaders taking political office after a recession.
Firstly, any credible leader would leave his country better off than he met it. Can Bahamians honestly declare that they are better off in 2012 than they were in 2007? I think that most reasonable people will concede that Christie left The Bahamas in better condition in 2007 than he met in 2002. Better condition refers to the quality of life of Bahamians. Let us examine some of the indices that underpin quality of life and form the basis for Ingraham's hubris.
Here is what the prime minister promised in an earlier Speech from the Throne: "My government will restore fiscal discipline to the public finances of the country, and will ensure that value is obtained for public expenditure and public business."
Time has proven that Hubert Ingraham cannot credibly lecture anyone on his leadership merits when it comes to fiscal discipline. When he returned to office in 2007, Hubert Ingraham met the national debt at $2.9 billion. It has now ballooned to $4.6 billion and by the end of this fiscal year the national debt is expected to be in the area of $5 billion. That is a net increase of some $2.1 billion in just five years. What kind of leader would make such a promise and then explode the national debt by over $2 billion in just five years?
One of the most important indicators of a nation's quality of life is the safety of its citizens. Can Bahamians truthfully claim that crime and the fear of crime are less now than they were in 2007? How can you boast of your leadership prowess after having presided over the most murderous and violent era in the history of The Bahamas?
Over 457 murders over a period of less than five years! Additionally, every other category of violent crime increased during this glorious leadership reign. A true leader would have taken measures necessary to reduce the incidents of violent crime and the fear of crime. Hubert Ingraham and the FNM have not demonstrated the kind of leadership needed in mobilizing and uniting communities in the fight against violence and criminal behavior.
Other areas where Hubert Ingraham's leadership has failed miserably are education and immigration control. These are issues vital to the quality of life of Bahamians. The FNM under Hubert Ingraham's leadership has failed to improve the education system institutionally, structurally or systemically and his leadership has failed to adequately prepare Bahamian students for the world after school. This is a terrible indictment on leadership.
Moreover, Bahamians feel that because of the immigration policies implemented by the FNM they have very little stake in the ownership of the county's economy, nor are they permitted to compete fairly in their own country. The immigration policies seem to curry favor foreign labor and foreign investors. This state of affairs does not bode well for the stability of the society.
Most failed leaders look to something or someone to blame for their failure. The global recession has been a convenient whipping dog for Hubert Ingraham and the FNM. However, Hubert Ingraham once pronounced that any leader worth his salt would anticipate a future recession and take corrective measures to mitigate the impact of that recession. Here is what he had to say in one of his earlier budget communications: "Furthermore, these budgetary problems were allowed to develop at a time when a prudent government would have recognized that cautionary measures should have been in place to meet any likelihood of a major recession in the U.S. economy, and to cushion the resultant impact on our tourism-driven economy."
How prudent was Ingraham's government? He went on to indict the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government by pronouncing: "It cannot be said that those who were responsible for managing the economy did not know hard times were coming, they just chose to ignore all the indicators."
Surely in 2007/2008, Ingraham knew a recession and resulting hard times were approaching? All fiscal and economic indicators pointed to it. Judging by his reckless response to, and the irresponsible choices made during, the recession Ingraham appeared to have been caught off guard by the recession. So much for leadership!
Leadership in government is about building and strengthening institutions that enhance democracy and improve the quality of life for citizens. Leadership in government is about inspiring people to achieve their dreams and ambitions. It is about building national consensus and compromise. Leadership is about mobilizing and consolidating the resources and talents of citizens toward national development. Leadership is not about demagoguery; it is not about power, intimidation and bullying.
So if I were the PLP or Democratic National Alliance, I would welcome a campaign based on leadership. I would put Ingraham's record, all of it, against the acid test of true leadership. I would seek to determine whether his five years of leadership improved the quality of life of Bahamians. I would simply ask if Bahamians were better off in 2012 than they were in 2007 - a simple and measurable reality - and let the people decide.

- Eric Gardner

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian