DR ELLISTON Rahmingﾴs letter published in The Tribune yesterday clearly reveals the difference between the leadership of the PLP and the FNM.
We almost wrote the difference between ﾓthe PLP and FNM,ﾔ but that would not have been correct. Many FNM supporters believe in ﾓpolitical patronageﾔ just as deeply as do the PLP. The only difference between the two groups is that one was held in check from grabbing the spoils of victory, while the other was not. And now we see the damage . . . . PLP supporters firing off like a lot of loose cannons, causing all kinds of embarrassment for their prime minister. Therefore, in dealing with this question, we put emphasis on the leaders, not the supporters.
In his partyﾴs 1992 Manifesto, then Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham wrote:
ﾓIt is perhaps for the devastation done to the peopleﾴs spirit that the outgoing regime (PLP) must be held to the most serious account. In their quarter of a century in power, they have systematically and brutally reduced large numbers of our people to dependency on politicians who have ceased to see themselves as the servants of the people.
ﾓThat is why the FNM places such great emphasis on the elevation of our peopleﾴs spirit in a participatory democracy in which social and economic justice is the entitlement of every citizen and the dependency syndrome is a thing of the past.
ﾓAnd that is why the FNM will work to ensure that every Bahamian will have the opportunity to be all that he or she wants to be, assured of upward mobility in an open society fuelled by a market-driven economy.ﾔ
When the FNM won the government in 1992 Bahamians were promised that an atmosphere would be created in which, with effort, they could develop to their full potential. In future it would be up to them. They would not be wrapped in a cocoon of government patronage.
But, according to Dr Rahming, assistant to Prime Minister Christie, his party believes in patronage. ﾓPatronage is quite legitimateﾔ, he writes. The dependency syndrome that Mr Ingraham promised would be a ﾓthing of the pastﾔ is now back to once more shackle Bahamians to a government and its politicians.
ﾓPerry G Christie said what he meant and meant what he says when he said that he regards corruption and victimisation as twin evils,ﾔ wrote Dr Rahming. But, the third ugly sister, a twin of victimisation, is apparently quite acceptable. Patronage ﾗ once the FNMﾴs frowned on ugly sister ﾗ now has been elevated to the fairy godmother for the in-crowd among the PLP.
ﾠ
It is too bad. It has done much damage in the past, and already it is turning a bright future sour. And instead of planning for the future, Mr Christie is busy putting out political bush fires, caused by patronage.
Dr Rahmingﾴs letter was critical of an editorial in which we put the label ﾓvictimisationﾔ on the manner in which school bus contracts were awarded in Andros, Acklins and Crooked Island.
ﾓThe fact of the matter is that by The Tribuneﾴs logic, if the FNM had won the election, Mr (Arnold) Farquharson (FNM-Crooked Island) would have been awarded the contract again, to the exclusion of any other applicant.ﾔ
Yes, thatﾴs the logical conclusion. It is what should have happened because Mr Farquharson, an FNM, gave an excellent service and there was no reason to replace him. We also believe Mr Curtis Hannaﾴs contract would have been renewed, because of good service. Mr Hanna of Spring Point, Acklins, a staunch PLP, was awarded his bus contract under the previous PLP government. He kept it another 10 years under the FNM government, and would have retained it under the FNM if that party had been returned ﾗ not because he was PLP, but because he had fulfilled his contract well.
If the FNM had taken Mr Farquharsonﾴs contract and given it to another FNM ﾓto share the pieﾔ as Dr Rahming put it, it would have been unfair.
What Dr Rahming has to get clear in his mind is that those contracts were given yearly on the understanding that they would be renewed if the service was up to standard. A yearly contract would keep the bus driver on his toes, knowing that if he did not maintain a reliable, safe service, his contract would not be renewed ﾗ not for politics, but for lack of performance.
And so when the FNM became the government in 1992, it renewed the contract of Mr Hanna (PLP) and it renewed the contract of Mr Stephen Rose (PLP). However, when the contracts were up for renewal in 1999, there were such angry complaints about Mr Roseﾴs service that the FNM did not renew his contract ﾗ not because he was PLP, but because his standard of service could no longer be tolerated.
In this situation, the FNM awarded Mr Roseﾴs contract to Mr Hanna (PLP), and in turn gave Mr Hannaﾴs bus route to Rev Newton Williamson (FNM).
Now, that the PLP is in power no FNM bus contract in any of these islands has been renewed, despite the excellent service that holders of those contracts are reported to have given. The contracts have all gone to PLP supporters, two of whom live in Nassau, and one of whom has not as yet found a regular driver. So far it is reported that the Chesters-Lovely Bay route is ﾓsporadic . . late here, late there.ﾔ But, as itﾴs a PLP controlled route, children and parents are probably expected to bear with it.
Dr Rahming and his party can call their system patronage …. we call it victimisation. Regardless of what one calls it, the results are foul.
ﾩﾠCopyright 2002, The Tribune
