by Adrian Gibson
First published in The Tribune on Monday, April 30, 2007 under the byline, Young Man’s View.
THE May 2nd general elections will not only be a battle between our major political parties, but will prominently feature a clash of the titans—PM Perry Christie (PLP) versus former PM Hubert Ingraham (FNM). Frankly, the clash between leaders reminds me of fight between a pit-bull and poodle.
Under Mr Christie’s watch, the governing party has been plagued by scandal, corruption and internal strife. Whether he has yet to believe he is Prime Minister or not, Mr Christie seemed like a deer caught in the headlights, as he has fumbled, bumbled and been wishy-washy with regard to several major issues that have confronted his administration over the past five years.
Whether it was sheer naivety and gullibility, Mr Christie’s mind-boggling defence of his skirmishing MP (Keod Smith/Kenyatta Gibson) and Shane Gibson, after it was uncovered that he had rushed Anna Nicole Smith’s residency permit, led many people to question his credibility. In these instances, Mr Christie put himself in a most ridiculous, untenable position. The multitude of scandals that had erupted and Mr Christie’s dithering and failure to address them may have permanently wrecked his legacy.
Early on, Christie pledged that there would be transparency and accountability in his government. However, we have seen feebleness over the last five years and an uncanny practice of concealment when it comes to government affairs, Heads of Agreements and scandals.
On November 26, 2003, a day after the resignation of Sidney Stubbs following the BAIC fiasco, Mr Christie got up in Parliament and said:
“I made it very clear to the Bahamian public, I have made it very clear here before, if an minister, and chairman, any Parliamentary Secretary transgresses rules and they are brough to my attention, I would ask them to resign.”
This was one of several instances of Mr Christie was blowing a lot of hot air, sermonizes and making promises that he could not deliver.
In an appearance on the talk show Parliament Street on October 15, 2006, PLP chairman Raynard Rigby said of Mr Christie: “This issue of indecisiveness is a red herring”. He also stated that the PM’s Code of Ethics only applied to ministers, and not MPs.
Beyond the absurdity of that statement, it is quite obvious that Mr Christie’s Code of Ethics was never invoked and apparently applied to neither ministers nor MPs, even though there has been several quite egregious breaches of ethics. Mr Christie has had no control over a wayward Cabinet and has not, in effect, disciplined rogue PLP MPs.
Although Mr Christie has been at the helm, the PLP appears more and more as a slack, lazy and rudderless outfit.
There has not been any tangible major development under Mr Christie. It appears that his anchor projects experiment has failed as there are no verifiable developments on the ground and hardly any of the much hyped and promised jobs have come to fruition.
PM Christie does have his high points, particularly as he has tried to introduce a consensus government. However, the overly laidback approach to this form of governance was unsuccessful, especially since hardly any of Mr Christie’s appointed commissions ever reported.
The PM’s inability to control his Cabinet and lack of the fortitude to fire ministers that humiliated him was akin to a silent abdication, on his part, of his leadership responsibilities. Mr Christie’s silence on many pertinent matters or scandals that required his input was deafening.
Perry Christie has proven to be a weak leader. Whatever his virtues are, his faults far outweigh them. Surely, it will take more than the Christie shuffle to save him this time!
On the other hand, FNM leader Hubert Ingraham is criticized as a maximum leader, who detractors say is not open to opposing or dissenting views. However, Mr Ingraham is widely considered to be a master politician who Sir Lynden Pindling himself referred to as one of his most illustrious protégés.
Although both Mr Christie and Mr Ingraham are said to have been students of Sir Lynden, they must have been in different classrooms, as their approach to leadership is like night and day.
Mr Ingraham has come to be known as a resolute, no-nonsense administrator. His no-nonsense approach to leadership is the very reason why so many former FNMs have grievances against him, that are simply sour grapes and have nothing to do with the direction of the country under his leadership, although they would like to fool the public into believing just that!
When it comes to personalities, we must recognize that pleasantry, may not make the most effective Prime Minister of a country—if it was to be the head of a nursery school, then it would be a different matter!
Although he is seen by some as an authoritarian, Mr Ingraham’s leadership prowess is impressive, and he has proven himself as a serious individual who does what he says and means it. In any hierarchal organization, someone has to be a leader and make decisions, however, Mr Christie cannot seem to be able to take that leap.
Many Bahamians are concluding that had the scandals involving Vincent Peet and the stashed US $100 bills, Shane Gibson, Bradley Roberts and others, occurred in Hubert Ingraham’s cabinet, these ministers would have all been asked to resign or be fired!
As May 2nd approaches, the choice is not only between two political parties, but also who will be the leaders at the helm of our government, which leader is better able to move the country forward and address any controversial or difficult issue that arises and which leader has the instinct necessary to effectively represent the interests of the Bahamian people. One thing is for sure, on May 3rd, one of these leaders will be without an appetite and to borrow Mr Christie’s words, someone will be “wearing pampers!”
