Today the evidence is massive and compelling that successive Bahamian governments have been obliged to deal with certain existential facts of life, among them this country’s unique susceptibility to external shocks, whether positive or negative.
The politically germane question, therefore, is not whether the Bahamas is subject to external forces, but the extent to which its leaders can ride out the attendant storms. Prime Minister the Hon. Perry G. Christie, whether he wishes to believe it or not, is in the midst of one such storm.
The political fortunes of any government in The Bahamas are shaped not only by the personality and skills of their leaders but also by any number of external developments over which they have no control. In recent times, the three prime ministers of The Bahamas have, with varying degrees of success, been able to weather a series of economic storms and governmental crises.
In recent memory, former Prime Minister, the Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham had the immensely good fortune to have governed The Bahamas in a time when money flowed. He had the good sense to open the national floodgates to a massive in-flow of foreign direct investment. As the record also shows, the Ingraham government was fiscally na�ve, apparently believing that this bonanza would last indefinitely. It did not. Where a tide once flowed, it began to ebb.
By the year 2000, warning signs were everywhere that hard times were falling. With the coming of the 9/11 disasters, bust and disgust were the twin orders of the day for the FNM. The eclipse of that party and its leadership was complete by May 2nd, 2002. Routed at the polls, it ceded the reins of government to Mr. Christie and his supposedly ‘new’ Progressive Liberal Party.
At this juncture, it is clear enough that Mr. Christie and his colleagues are today facing their own brand of external shock. This time it is about what a war in the Middle East will mean for this country’s economy and his government’s prospects. This is the reality behind the current crisis of confidence swirling around a prime minister who is being accused of being directionless and indecisive.
The Prime Minister continues to be criticized for what seems his decided penchant towards procrastination. No day – here of late – passes when there is no lament concerning what his friends and foes alike agree is an emerging pattern of drift and indecision on the part of Mr. Christie and the most senior members of his team.
What is interesting about the carping criticism of the Christie team and its approach to governance is that much of it is coming from sources which were previously highly critical of former Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham. As we so vividly recall, he was severely criticized for what some called a hyperactive approach to public policy, one which apparently called on the then leader of the Free National Movement to do practically everything that mattered.
Today in very different economic times, Prime Minister Christie is facing demands that he do something to address some of this country’s festering problems. High on the list are some that he and his government can and should respond to, sooner rather than later. Take for example the sorry case of The Bahamas Agricultural and Industrial Corporation where its Executive Chairman and the Minister are apparently at loggerheads. Anyone with an iota of commonsense agrees that this mess is one that Prime Minister Christie can and should do something about. To date, he has apparently decided to allow things to stay the way they are.
In another instance of what seems to be based yet again on a penchant and bias towards drift and indecision, there is evidence to suggest that the Bahamas Development Bank is not getting the kind of proactive attention it should. Again, the burden for this sorry situation must be placed on the shoulders of Prime Minister Christie whose laidback style is being blamed for the mess.
In other instances of dereliction and delay, there is evidence to suggest that very many of the Commissions called in to being by Prime Minister Christie are not working. It is being suggested that they are not functioning as the Prime Minister expected they would. This is due, in no small measure, to the fact that many of the people who have been placed on them do not have the incentive, interest or capacity to do what needs to be done to make them work. However these matters are ultimately resolved, the fact remains that having won the general elections some nine months ago, the ‘new’ PLP is yet to silence its critics or convince any but its most rabid diehards that it has a real grip on things.
Were these times economically prosperous, the new regime’s laisser faire attitude to governing The Bahamas would go down well with most Bahamians, people who traditionally and implicitly follow the line of least resistance. The truth is that these times are filled with dread and anxiety about this country’s immediate prospects. War talk in the United States continues to send ripples of fear throughout the Bahamian economy. For the longer term, the Free Trade of The Americas Agreement continues to perplex and perturb even the ordinarily most optimistic businesspersons.
With the happy exception of two or three of his more senior ministers, few of Prime Minister Christie’s colleagues seem to have a handle on this and other issues germane to the current realities facing The Bahamas. In fairness, though, it must be noted that the current correlation of forces in the world economy and in global society is such that any government in The Bahamas would – under similar circumstances – be stressed and stretched to the limit. Such appears to be the state of affairs facing the new regime.
Editorial, The Bahama Journal
