Dear Editor,
In political life, decisions are often less about policy than about personality—less about the future than about settling unfinished business with the past. The recent announcement by Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard that former Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis will not be nominated as a candidate in the next general election is one such decision. It says far more about Pintard than it does about Minnis.
Let us dispense with the obvious: every party has the right to chart its own future, to decide who speaks for it, and who should carry its banner into the next election. But when the removal of a former leader and sitting Member of Parliament comes with no clear explanation—no articulation of principle or political strategy—the public is left to connect the dots. And in this case, the pattern is hard to miss.
Pintard could never quite get past his own insecurities where Dr. Minnis was concerned. Whether it was the weight of Minnis’s political base, his record as a sitting Prime Minister, or the shadow he continues to cast over party deliberations, Pintard seemed to treat Minnis not as a predecessor to be respected, but as an obstacle to be managed. What we witnessed this week is the culmination of a long, quiet struggle within the party—one that Pintard appears to have resolved not through leadership, but through elimination.
But if this is a referendum on the Minnis administration, then Pintard must be willing to speak plainly: Was that administration a failure? If so, does he take any ownership of that outcome as a sitting Cabinet Minister during the period in question? Or does he intend to blame all of it on one man, while asking the public to pretend the rest of the FNM was merely along for the ride?
Political insecurity often disguises itself as party reform. But it is worth remembering: a leader who cannot acknowledge his role in past decisions cannot credibly claim to offer something new. The Bahamian people know what the last FNM term was—they lived it. They remember the curfews, the lockdowns, the economic hardship, and the communication failures. Pintard was not a spectator during that period; he was a participant. The attempt now to rewrite that history by isolating Minnis as the sole architect is not only disingenuous—it is deeply unserious.
This is a moment that required statesmanship. Instead, we got strategy. A quiet, calculated removal of a political figure who—even with his flaws—commanded loyalty, held the confidence of his constituents, and remained a known quantity to the electorate. Minnis was not everyone’s idea of a polished politician, but he was elected. And re-elected. And in the FNM’s darkest hour, he still held his seat. That counts for something.
Pintard may believe that with Minnis gone, the party can reset. But ideas—not removals—move nations forward. And until the FNM can offer a coherent vision, backed by credible leadership that isn’t haunted by its own past, voters will view these internal dramas as distractions rather than direction.
Sincerely,
Janice Kemp
