"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

During the past few months, there have been instances where some of our public officials, on all sides of the political divide, seem to have taken leave of their senses. The country now appears to be coasting on a directionless and purposeless trajectory, seemingly on auto-pilot, with no clear direction or knowledge of where we are headed. Some members of the governing party appear to be off on a frolic of their own, without any sense of belonging to a unified team, while the Official Opposition continually fails to offer any substantial, philosophically-based alternatives to governance, apparently intent on opposing for its own sake.
Therefore this week, we would like to consider this...will the missteps and missed opportunities of the recent past result in a political culture that will be characterized by single-term governments for the foreseeable future?
A real sense of purpose and direction
In the early days of our modern political history, dating back to the 1950s, 60s and 70s, our politics were driven by a real sense of deeply-rooted and philosophically-based national purpose. Beginning with the advent of party politics in 1953 and inspired by a unified national psyche that characterized the march to majority rule in 1967 and culminating with political independence in 1973, our national development was driven by clearly defined and innately intuitive ideals of a national mission. That no longer seems to be the case. Somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost our focus, irretrievably ensconced in a vortex that whirls from the surreal to the stultifying.
For better or worse, our development from 1967 to 1992 was aided, and some would argue, possibly retarded, by the fact that, during that time, there was a continuity of leadership by a single political party, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). That 25-year rule was interrupted by the election of the Free National Movement (FNM), which had a 10-year run at governance from1992 to 2002. The next 10 years witnessed two one-term PLP and FNM administrations, previously unprecedented in our politics. Then in 2012, the PLP won the elections and some would now argue that if that party continues on its current trajectory, it will once again be a one-term government. So what has happened?
A more demanding and intolerant electorate
One reason for the precipitous pendulum swing that resulted in one-term tenures is today's more demanding electorate, whose tolerance and patience for high quality performance by the government is short-lived.
In the case of the PLP, which ruled from 2002 to 2007, the intolerance of the electorate was driven by charges of corruption and scandals in office, coupled with a sense of indecisive leadership. In addition, the electorate believed that too much emphasis was placed on foreign investors at the expense of our own citizens who did not have the same level of attention, access or support from its government.
In the case of the FNM, which ruled from 2007 to 2012, the electorate quickly tired of the autocratic and bellicose leadership style of the prime minister, coupled with a miserably mismanaged multimillion dollar road works program that disrupted the lives of thousands and displaced and closed down the businesses of many others.
The current state of play
Today, with less than two years in office, the people are again murmuring about the PLP government, an unprecedented case of "buyers' remorse" in such a short period of time. Since coming to office, the government has moved to contain one crisis after another, beginning with the firing of the chairman of the National Insurance Board, a failed referendum on web shop gaming, and considerable opposition to the government's indecisiveness and insensitivity to Bahamians who believe that they should be free to gamble in casinos in The Bahamas.
In addition, many Bahamians believe that the government has poorly executed its tax reform program, including its vastly unpopular value-added tax (VAT) proposal. The opposition to the VAT proposal has also been heightened by the unpopular rescue efforts of the VAT chief spokesman following his admission of dodging real property taxes, particularly in light of that person's strong stance against persons who are not compliant with respect to the payment of the proposed value-added taxes. All of these missteps and mistakes were exacerbated by the recent admission by a parliamentarian that he has physically abused a woman.
In addition, there are many of the party faithful who feel that the government has done little to reward their loyalty to the party, while rewarding, and in some instances favoring, some persons who have vociferously and overtly opposed the party.
It is also patently obvious that the people have no more tolerance for the "yuck it up style" in Parliament where opposing forces seem to display little civility in the House of Assembly and less so in the Senate. It is also crystal clear that the People want thoughtful solutions and serious lawmakers who are expected to behave like law abiding citizens.
The electorate is short of patience with a short attention span and, if this behavior persists, will look forward with great anticipation to expressing their displeasure at the polls in a little over 37 months or possibly earlier.
What does this mean for our democracy?
In light of these developments, the important question that the PLP must urgently address is whether, through its performance in office, they are breeding single-term governments and, if so, what is the danger of that?
Most reasonable people will accept that the 25-year run that the PLP enjoyed under Sir Lynden was too long and that the country is not well-served by such long tenures of any political party. We believe that it is a very positive thing for the people to change governments from time to time. By the same token, it cannot be beneficial for our democracy or for the continuity of governance if, because of the pronouncements and actions of elected officials, we constantly experience the yo-yo changes of one-term governments. Such an eventuality does not foster stability of governments.
Conclusion
If we are going to promote stability of governance and afford a government a reasonable opportunity to fulfil its mandate, the government of the day must fully appreciate that they are constantly and continually being evaluated. Therefore, they must minimize their missteps and take advantage of every opportunity to ensure that they enjoy the confidence of the people who have entrusted them with leadership. Political parties must fully understand the prevailing intolerance and impatience of the electorate and the consequences of such sentiments. If these parties persist in behavior that insults the intelligence of that electorate and if they ignore the tenets of civility in office, they will forever find themselves on the wrong side of the electorate whose lack of tolerance for nonsense and miscreant behavior will result in them being turned out of office after just a single term.
o Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & 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