BAHAMAS SHOULD “CHOOSE PROGRES OVER PETTINESS

The Bahamas stands at a political crossroads, not just between two parties, but between two temperaments, two philosophies of leadership, and two fundamentally different approaches to power.

This election is not about slogans. It is about trust.

On one side stands the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) under Philip Davis, a leader many Bahamians, across class lines and constituencies, have come to view as steady, measured, and humane. On the other side is the Free National Movement (FNM) led by Michael Pintard, a man who has carefully cultivated the language of transparency and accountability, but whose political journey raises serious questions about consistency.

Let us be frank.

Philip Davis governs with a temperament that calms rather than inflames. His administration implemented a national school breakfast programme so that no child begins the day hungry. That is not ideological theatre; that is compassion translated into policy. The reduction of VAT on key food items to zero was not political grandstanding; it was recognition that working families are suffocating under global economic pressures.

Heartless Pintard objected.

He framed such relief as fiscally irresponsible, hinting that people must “pay their way.” But leadership is not an accounting exercise alone. It is a moral calculation. When a government ensures children eat before they learn, that is not weakness; it is civilization.

Now, let us examine the FNM leader’s brand versus his record.

Pintard has built a public persona as a crusader for transparency. He hammers the Davis administration over FOIA delays, procurement disclosures, and contract transparency. His message is simple: clean hands, clean government.

But in March 2016, Pintard resigned as FNM chairman and senator amid controversy surrounding the Peter Nygard lawsuit. Reports described allegations involving dealings with questionable characters, claims that individuals were paid for false testimony, and unresolved questions about compensation. Pintard insisted his resignation was not an admission of guilt. Things that make you mmmmmm!

Fair enough.

But here lies the contradiction critics cannot ignore: you cannot brand yourself as the high priest of transparency while your own political history contains murky chapters that remain politically inconvenient. Transparency cannot be situational. It cannot be weaponized only when it is useful.

Consider also his language.

In January 2024, Pintard publicly declared he believed the Police Commissioner “did not tell the truth,” escalating the accusation into insinuations of collusion with the government. The Prime Minister later rebuked him in Parliament, suggesting Pintard was ignorant of the full facts.

Leadership demands restraint. When serious allegations are made without settled proof, public trust erodes. Pintard condemns reckless talk when it suits him, yet has shown willingness to go nuclear when politically expedient.

Then there is the issue of unity.

In December 2025, Pintard insisted the FNM was unified, dismissing reports of internal fractures as “sour grapes.” Yet the party’s recent history has been marred by leadership tensions, candidate disputes, and visible unease among long-time supporters. Meritorious Council Members, former presidents of the Women’s Association, and other notable figures have gone public with their change of heart. Key supporters have been jumping off the sinking FNM ship and are gladly and boldly dressed in PLP colours.

Most glaring was the treatment of former Prime Minister Hubert Minnis. Pintard announced Minnis would not receive a party nomination, only to later soften his tone when Minnis declared he would run as an independent in 2026. Suddenly, Minnis was described as someone who could have served as an “elder statesman.”

Brent Symonette and Dionisio D’Aguilar, the UBP arm of the FNM, could not wait to throw Minnis under the bus with disrespect and disdain. Wow!

You close the door. He walks out. Then you speak nostalgically about him staying.

That is not strategic consistency; that is reactive politics.

Contrast this with Davis’s leadership style. He does not govern by spectacle. He does not thrive on rhetorical combustion. His approach has been incremental, policy-focused, and deliberately inclusive. You may disagree with every policy — that is democracy — but you cannot deny the steadiness of the hand.

This election boils down to a simple question: who do you trust when tensions rise? Who do you trust when global storms hit our shores? Who do you trust to speak with dignity, not volatility?

The FNM under Pintard offers confrontation wrapped in the language of reform. The PLP under Davis offers continuity wrapped in social protection.

One argues that people should brace themselves. The other asks how the government can cushion the blow.

One market’s outrage. The other markets’ stability.

Bahamians are not naïve. They remember. They compare tone with temperament, rhetoric with record. This moment demands more than clever messaging. It demands maturity.

Leadership is not about who shouts transparency the loudest. It is about who consistently embodies it. It is not about who accuses most aggressively. It is about who governs most responsibly.

The Bahamas is indeed on the brink of an important election. The choice is not merely between red and yellow. It is between combustible politics and calibrated governance.

And when the noise fades, the quiet question will remain:

Who truly has the temperament to lead?