"In democracy, every election is a learning process. You learn from every election, the one that you win and the one that you lose. And then you prepare for the next one." - Salman Khurshid

The general election of 2017 is history, and the Free National Movement (FNM) has handily vanquished the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). We believe that the 2017 election will be studied by political pundits, students of politics and change analysts for many years to come.
Notwithstanding the assertions by some in the PLP that too much time should not be devoted to analyzing what went wrong, we strongly believe that anyone who does not learn from their mistakes is bound to repeat them. Hence, serious, sober and soul-searching scrutiny is absolutely essential. Furthermore, a prospective review of this election, without its historical context, will not afford future generations of Bahamians an essential frame of reference within which these elections took place.
Therefore, this week, we would like to Consider this... Why did the FNM win the general election of 2017?

The truth of the matter
The simple, but factual, truth of the matter is that the FNM won the general election because it was perceived by the majority of Bahamians as the lesser of two evils. It was not so much because of any great love or admiration for the FNM. Nor was it so much because of any deep and abiding faith in Hubert Minnis' ability to lead the country. There were many who were not impressed by either choice, and the DNA was not even factored into many persons' consciousness as a viable alternative.
Across the length and breadth of this country, very many strong, long-standing PLP supporters, and an even more significant number of undecided voters, had completely lost faith in the Christie administration, including some of Christie's ministers who did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, without any kind of sanction whatsoever from their leader.
Akin to that reality was the prevalent sentiment that the country could not withstand another five years of a Christie administration. Door after door, house after house, and voter after voter, PLP candidates were accosted by voters who maintained: "I really like you as a candidate, and I believe that you would be a good representative in Parliament, but if I vote for you, that would be a vote for Mr. Christie, and that is something that I cannot bring myself to do. So, I'm sorry, but this time I cannot support the PLP." Hence, in very large numbers, so said, so done.
So disgusted, disappointed and disaffected were some voters that a "spoiled ballot" movement emerged from several prominent University of The Bahamas professors. For the first time in Bahamian history, the right to vote, which was fought so hard for by the Peoples' Party, the PLP, the Suffragettes and others was questioned by a large number of undecideds, who, up to election day, were uncertain about how they would vote because of the meager choices before them.
In the final analysis, however, voters decided that it was their civic duty to vote the PLP out of office and to retire not only Christie, but all but two of his Cabinet colleagues.
In the next few columns, we will examine how a government that five years earlier had taken office in a landslide victory in terms of the number of Parliamentary seats so quickly fell from grace with the electorate.

PLP promises of 2012
In its 2012 general election campaign, the PLP's platform proffered a plethora of promises to the Bahamian people. The PLP promised that it was poised to govern on day one. It pledged to significantly reduce the level of crime that had plagued the society under the FNM's preceding term in office, promising to reduce the record number of murders. In contrast, for the next three years after being elected, the murder rate achieved a higher record than in each of the preceding years under the FNM.
The PLP promised that it would create 10,000 jobs in record time. Unlike its predecessor in office, the PLP promised to put Bahamians first. The party would also mobilize and utilize its young, new candidates to address many of the problems that were created and left unresolved by the FNM. That never happened. In fact, many of the newly elected members were side-stepped and side-lined.
In addition, Christie publicly announced that he would only serve a few years of his term as prime minister, and that, before the end of the term, he would hand over the leadership of the PLP to a successor. Proclaiming to be the "bridge to the future", after nearly 20 years of leadership of the PLP, he would willingly begin that future by passing the baton to a new party leader.
In 2012, Bahamians believed those promises and decided to give Christie his final opportunity to govern after five years in opposition.

The gaming referendum
Shortly after coming to office in 2012, the government decided to take the bold step of legalizing the domestic gaming industry. Although this was a noble objective, its practical application was fraught with problems.
First, the prime minister indicated that, in the upcoming referendum to address this, he "had no horse in the race," and that he would abide by the wishes of the electorate in a referendum that was held in January 2013. That was a fatal mistake.
The prime minister, who was also the minister of finance, could have explained that, if the country allowed this illegal activity to continue, The Bahamas could have faced the negative effects of being blacklisted. This would happen because of the inherent risk of allowing the potential for money-laundering or terrorist financing that might result from an unregulated, predominantly cash-based industry, which was estimated to annually generate as much as $400 million. Bahamians would have understood that such an unregulated, cash-based industry would not place the country in a positive light among the community of nations.
The prime minister and minister of finance could also have reasonably argued that considerable taxes and gaming fees would be raised to defray public expenditures. This was especially understandable because of the anemic condition of the country's public finances that the PLP inherited.
But to maintain that he "had no horse in the race" was a blatant abdication of responsibility by the Christie administration.
To add insult to injury, once the people voted down the legalization of this industry in the referendum, for the Christie adminstration to proceed with regularizing this industry was considered to be a slap in the face of the voters. There is no doubt that very early in his administration, Christie spent a lot of his political capital on a proposition that was considered overwhelmingly unacceptable by the electorate. Ultimately, the results of the first referendum early in his term dealt a devastating blow to the trust that the electorate placed in the Christie administration.

Putting Bahamians first
During the 2012 campaign, the PLP promised that it would put Bahamians first. Very early in its term, the PLP government repeatedly looked abroad to foreign consultants to advise it on policy issues. In many cases, those same highly paid foreign consultants availed themselves of the expertise of local professionals to inform the former of positions regarding national issues. Consultants presented these recommendations to the government as their own ideas.
The insatiable infatuation for foreign consultants and the practice of relying on their advice demonstrated the government's lack of confidence in its own highly educated, well-informed, local professionals and was deeply resented by Bahamians who were, in many cases, adequately equipped to advise the government on national issues. This practice continued to erode the trust that citizens placed in the government's promise of putting Bahamians first.
There were other examples of this, where the government delayed decisions that adversely affected Bahamian businesses while simultaneously rapidly responding to requests by foreign investors. This enraged many Bahamians who repeatedly witnessed the red carpet being rolled out for foreigners while Bahamians' proposals suffocated in red tape.
There was a general sense that the government was prepared to extend certain privileges and concessions to foreigners that it withheld from Bahamians. A combination of these factors led many to believe that "putting Bahamians first" was nothing more than an empty political campaign promise.

Conclusion
In part two of this four-part series, we will examine some of the other reasons why the PLP was so preemptorily propelled from office. We will examine BAMSI, the aborted Chinese fishing fiasco, the interference of a minister in the judicial process, the Baha Mar saga, and the Rubis debacle in order to better understand the historic happenings of May 10, 2017.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian