This weekend the Free National Movement will meet to determine its way forward.
The conclave, self-branded by the party’s current leader Michael Pintard as a “family affair”, should be anything but that.
Mr Pintard is seeking to hold on to power within the organization by the tips of his fingers.
He knows that his time is up, but is seeking to quell any move against him.
Yesterday he posted on Facebook a message of “fellowship” with his deputy leader, calling him his “right hand”. The funny thing about that post is there was not one photo of the two together embracing, or being cordial. Mr Shanendon Cartwright has been sidelined by Michael Pintard in a naked attempt to stifle his rise within the party.
Having lost his race in the St James constituency, political observers were left baffled when the deputy leader of their party was not offered a seat in the Senate, where the voice of Mr Cartwright would have been heard loud and clear.
Instead, loyalists to Pintard were elevated. This is a long-standing practice of “padding the voting block” to protect the leader for exactly what this weekend is designed to do — course correction.
Under Michael Pintard, the FNM has experienced loss after loss after loss. The party’s crushing defeat in the last general election should have seen Pintard resigning that night. However, he played the long game, and delayed and delayed until the party was forced to bring forth former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham. Mr Ingraham, never one to mince words, told FNMs in August in the presence of Pintard that their job was to now “find a leader who could win”. Not recalibrate. Not reimagine. Go and find.
That message was unambiguous.
The Bahamian people would recall this was the same Hubert Ingraham who Pintard had to lean on to draw crowds and excitement in the lead-up to the last election, as he alone could not. It was painful to see, therefore, Pintard turn on Mr Ingraham in the days and weeks following Mr Ingraham’s charge to the party. He rebuked his former party leader. He rebuked a three-time Prime Minister. He then went on to declare that he would be the only person to decide his future while proclaiming that he, and he alone, was the best option for the FNM.
That level of narcissism is not only problematic but concerning for an organization that would seek to remain relevant in an evolving political environment.
The political stakes extend beyond who occupies the leader’s office. An opposition must persuade voters that it has the judgment, discipline and depth to form a government. That requires room for ambitious colleagues, credible voices and disagreement. If internal advancement depends on loyalty to one individual, the party risks confusing personal allegiance with political strength.
Delegates must therefore ask a harder question: what has changed that would make the next electoral outcome different? Familiar slogans and declarations of unity cannot answer it. Neither can a photograph or a carefully worded Facebook post. The answer must involve a credible plan to rebuild public confidence and a change in leadership that can inspire the party’s base and court those who feel disillusioned with the political system.
Unless the FNM has an honest and open conversation and follows the urging of Mr Ingraham, they stand to remain in opposition for a long, long time. The party has to determine if it is bigger than the dreams and delusions of one man.
That opportunity is now, and the Bahamian people, who have spoken to the organization time and time again, are watching closely.