Dear Editor,
The idea of “moving forward” is emotionally satisfying. It conjures images of progress, growth, unity, and action. But in politics, words must be backed by substance. Lately, in the Free National Movement, “forward” has become a euphemism for silencing dissent, papering over fractures, and ignoring inconvenient truths. And the electorate is noticing.
After my last piece questioning the so-called “forward movement” of the FNM, the response has been overwhelming—from longtime party supporters, independents, and even PLPs—who all agree on one thing: they don’t know what this party currently stands for. This is not a crisis of communication; it is a crisis of identity.
The decision to remove a former leader from contention may have been politically calculated, but it was not politically wise. It is one thing to pass the baton with grace and unity—it is quite another to snatch it mid-race, with whispers behind closed doors and no clear plan for who’s running next. The FNM’s top brass have offered no new ideas, no new energy, and certainly no evidence that the electorate is rallying behind them. Their strategy? Muffle the old guard, recycle the same talking points, and hope no one notices the car is stuck in neutral.
Let’s be brutally honest: the real power struggle isn’t about the future. It’s about the past clawing its way back through surrogates. No one should be fooled into believing that Michael Pintard is leading the FNM with full autonomy. He was never the preferred choice of the party’s old-guard kingmakers—those names Bahamians know well. Hubert Ingraham, once praised for his strategic mind, has instead reemerged as the architect of division, not unity. His real pick? Dr. Duane Sands—a man who has failed to secure his own constituency and is now throwing money at the problem like a gambler down to his last chip.
Let’s be real: if Dr. Sands couldn’t inspire confidence in Elizabeth, what makes the party think he can lead a national resurgence?
And what of Brent Symonette, whose motivations are never rooted in service, but in safeguarding the commercial interests of the few? If you want to understand the FNM’s direction, don’t listen to the speeches—follow the money. Ask who benefits, who writes the cheques, who gets the contracts. This isn’t conspiracy—it’s political arithmetic. And right now, the numbers don’t favor the average Bahamian.
All the while, the public watches—weary of internal squabbling and backroom deals—wondering what any of this has to do with their electricity bills, their children’s education, their access to healthcare, or the rising cost of living. The answer? Not much.
In all of this, former Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis becomes a convenient scapegoat. Whether you support his return or not, one cannot deny that his era brought real engagement with everyday Bahamians, especially during crisis. To act as though his influence must be scrubbed from the party’s history is not only short-sighted—it’s deeply insecure.
If the FNM is truly serious about winning hearts, minds, and votes, it must first win back its soul. That will require honesty, accountability, and, yes—humility. Because forward isn’t a destination. It’s a direction. And right now, it’s unclear whether the FNM is moving at all, or just spinning in circles, led by those trying to rewrite their own legacies.
The people deserve better than orchestrated silence and shadow leadership.
So yes, let’s move forward. But let’s be clear: forward with vision, forward with transparency, and forward with courage—not just away from the past, but toward a future that actually includes all Bahamians.
William Gray
