NASSAU, BAHAMAS – Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s address at the FNM’s 34th anniversary observance has been narrowly framed around a single topic: its implications for party
leadership.
I was present in the room to hear the full thing. That’s why I find much of the commentary surface-level and politically juvenile.
Ingraham treated attendees to a thoughtful, plain-spoken synopsis of the FNM’s political evolution. He reminded supporters just how much the party has endured and what it accomplished when given the opportunity to govern.
Decades of sacrifice, political compromise, organizational refinement and persistence, lead to four terms of FNM governance: three under Mr. Ingraham and one under Dr. Minnis. In this century alone, the FNM's record includes a list of achievements that made this country the envy of the region and a genuine powerhouse in global tourism.
The opening of the downtown Nassau port. The construction and opening of the national stadium. The New Providence Road Improvement Project, which eased traffic congestion at launch and opened up access to the western districts. The overhaul of the waste disposal system and the end of the dump fires that used to blanket New Providence in smoke. Disney’s arrival in Eleuthera. The liberalization of communications. Better management of BEC. Accessible, affordable shares in public entities that put ownership in the hands of
everyday Bahamians.
With few exceptions, these developments have been net positives for our country and its citizenry.
In contrast, it is genuinely difficult to point to a single major, transformative accomplishment under either Perry Christie or Philip Davis, despite both governing during periods of strong or improving economic circumstances.
Fate would deal the FNM some unfortunate hands: Ingraham braved a global recession just one year into his third term, and Dr. Minnis faced the twin blows of Hurricane Dorian and a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Less quoted over the last few days is Ingraham’s wise disclaimer to attendees— that “nothing I say about the past is intended to say you must do the same thing… Because each election is different.”
That’s why I don’t view his history lesson on Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield and Sir Kendal Isaacs as handing the party a script to copy. I see it as part of a wider challenge for FNMs to find the right combination of language, personnel and selflessness to make victory possible again.
Communicating the party’s legacy effectively—and in a manner that secures its next chapter—is every FNM’s responsibility.
The Leader of the Party is not the only one who must sign up for that work.
