Is the Progressive Liberal Party living a big political and governmental lie? If one were to look at their posturing and listen to the words of the leadership, one would be forced to draw no other conclusion. In opposition, however, the Progressive Liberal party has lived up to what its name suggests, from its very early days.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of current English, the word progressive means moving forward first of all – step-by-step, and second, advancing in social condition, character, efficiency, etc. From this descriptive adjective we get the noun progressivism, which the same dictionary defines as informal and without strict discipline, stressing individualism – hence of progressive policy.
The second philosophical description of the party is liberal, which the dictionary defines first as broadening of mind, not professional or technical, and second, as generous, open-handed, not sparing of, ample, abundant; not rigorous or literal; open-minded, candid, unprejudiced.
The third definition of liberal, however, is the most telling in the political sense; for it is defined as: Favourable to democratic reform and individual liberty or as the British Liberal Party would say at its origin, “befitting a free man.” No doubt this was the underlying philosophy and motivating ideology of the founders of that party, but have that philosophy and ideology remained the undergirding and guiding force down through the five decades of the party’s existence?
Prior to election to office in 1967, thanks to the support of Labourite the late Sir Randal Fawkes and Independent Sir Alvin Braynen, the PLP preached a fairly liberal philosophy. On forming the government, however, it moved most conservatively in order to re-assure the people that black leadership could govern responsibly. Some three years later there was a split in the party because it was felt that the party was losing its way.
As the decades passed the party became more and more conservative and seemed more concerned with maintaining control and power for a few, rather than empowering and liberating the many. As a result, the people replaced that progressively conservative party with the Free National Movement government, which was born out of the original philosophy of the Progressive Liberal Party, in 1971.
Almost from day one of assuming the government the Free National Movement started
ﾠﾠﾠliving up to what its name suggests. It opened up the country economically and socially be privatisation of some of its holdings, removing the electronic media monopoly, liberalizing investment policies and introducing a restricted form of school boards and local government. This latter venture was long talked about by the PLP, but it never seemed to muster up the courage to do anything concrete about it.
The Free National Movement government brought about a sense of liberation in other spheres also, but alas the people began to suffer a sense of vertigo because the government was moving too fast and liberal, and the leadership was becoming too arrogant and dictatorial. Some people felt, however, that it was simply a burning desire to bring about a more just, self-reliant and responsible society that precipitated the rapidity of government changes.
The people decided to put a stop to the Free National Movement, rejecting all other parties that espoused progressive, democratic reforms and returned to “progressive conservatism”. It would appear, however, that this move has brought about quite a bit of disappointment and dissatisfaction after only eight months of returned PLP government. Much of the movement, many to which the country had become accustomed, seems to have come to a stop or crawl, precipitating a sense of restiveness among the citizenry.
A sense of heaviness and inertia seems to have taken hold as the country waits to be energized toward further empowerment to that experienced under the Free National Movement government. Granted the nine and a half years of almost frenetic government is an extremely hard act to follow, but people didn’t think that the county would regress to a crawl for unstated lengthy periods, during which time there has been so much finger-pointing, blaming and alibing.
It is very different to become positive and feel energized in that kind of uncertain environments. People would feel much better in a goal-oriented environment with built-in time frames for achieving stated objectives. Progress, or lack thereof, could then be measured and appropriate adjustments made.
Hopefully the government will quickly make the adjustment needed to re-energize the people to that pre-election level of hope and expectation. Progressive conservatism seems not to be getting the job done.
Viewpoints, The Bahama Journal
