FNM HOUSE IS BURNING, WILL THERE BE SURVIVORS?

The Free National Movement is not merely experiencing political turbulence. It is enduring a self-inflicted wound — one so deep, so reckless, that even its most loyal architects are now standing back in disbelief.

What we are witnessing is not opposition politics. It is a civil war.

The FNM once prided itself on discipline, unity, and the ability to weather storms. Today, proverbial fingers are pointing in every direction. Former allies glare at one another across widening fault lines. Executives whisper in corners. Candidates second-guess the leadership. Senators are being fired a few months before an impending general election. Why? Supporters who carried the party on their backs from its inception are shaking their heads in quiet frustration.

This implosion did not happen overnight.

It began the moment pettiness replaced prudence.

The purging of the Hubert Minnis faction was not strategic; it was spiteful. It is political suicide. Whatever one thinks of Dr Minnis, he remains a former Prime Minister and a foundational pillar of the modern FNM. In politics, reconciliation is a strength. Inclusion is a strategy. But instead of calming the waters, the current leadership chose to churn them. Was this designed to intentionally sabotage the party?

Leaders are called to be adults in the room.

They steady the ships.

They do not light matches near gasoline.

Michael Pintard had an opportunity ,  a golden one, to build a cohesive, formidable opposition party. Instead, overtures were never made. Olive branches were never extended. Bridges were burned. Minnis was not merely sidelined; he was disrespected. And in politics, disrespect has consequences. Pintard’s mental state came to the fore.  Is he stable? Inquiry minds want to know.

Now the party is paying the price.

Long-standing supporters — the honest FNMs who defended the party in living rooms, on street corners, and in the polling booths — feel alienated. Figures like Jit “Culmer,” who gave sweat equity to the movement, are reportedly disappointed at the direction candidate selection has taken. Real, battle-tested supporters and former candidates were overlooked, treated as disposable rather than foundational.

If the last general election was a measuring stick for candidate viability, then consistency must be applied across the board.

Take Dr Duane Sands.

He “broke off running” from Elizabeth Constituency. A small, diminutive woman who outworked and outmanoeuvred him politically suffocated him. His electoral loss was decisive. His resignation as Minister of Health over poor judgment in the Frank Smith case remains part of the public record. Questions surrounding conflicts of interest and lapses in discernment do not evaporate with time. He was forced to resign during Covid due to his poor judgment.

If “fitness” and “propriety” are the standards by which candidates are judged, then selective amnesia is not leadership — it is hypocrisy.

Thus, the argument that Hubert Minnis was somehow uniquely unfit rings hollow. One cannot apply moral filters to one faction while offering political absolution to another.

That is not a principle.

That is convenience.

And supporters see it.

Meanwhile, the tone from the top has only worsened perceptions. When three-time Women’s Association Chairman Carron Shepherd defected from what she described as an “unstable” FNM, and that they were “not together”, the response from Pintard and his associates was reportedly to tell her to “carry her arse.” Whether uttered in frustration or bravado, such language reflects a startling immaturity.

Politics is about persuasion, not petulance.

When a senior female executive departs, the mature response is reflection — not ridicule. Instead of asking why a pillar was left, the leadership mocked her exit. That is not how one rebuilds confidence. That is how one confirms instability.

The result? Credibility erosion.

People are leaving. Quietly. Strategically. Some openly declare they cannot and will not support a Pintard-led FNM. Others are simply disengaging, and disengagement is more dangerous than defection.

There is a growing sense that the party has lost its moral centre. Internal chaos has replaced clarity. Public messaging is reactive rather than visionary. The base feels unvalued. Longtime supporters sense that loyalty is transactional.

Ironically, if the FNM collapses under its own weight, the only figure who might ultimately benefit is Hubert Ingraham — not out of triumph, but out of opportunity. A complete reset would allow a blank slate, a rebuilt movement stripped of the current bitterness.

But even that is theoretical.

Because politics is not therapy.

It is arithmetic.

And the numbers are shifting.

Across the Bahamas, there is a noticeable contrast. While the FNM wrestles itself, the Progressive Liberal Party projects steadiness. Programs are rolling out. Infrastructure is moving. Economic indicators show signs of stabilization. Whether one agrees with every policy or not, there is a perception of order.

And perception matters.

Even among traditional FNM voters, there is quiet acknowledgement that Philip “Brave” Davis has governed with composure. Stability versus spectacle is becoming the defining choice.

This is not about partisan cheerleading. It is about political reality.

A narcissist is often the only one who believes he remains relevant when the room has moved on. Leadership requires humility, not ego. Coalition-building, not combative theatrics. Adults in the room — not children with megaphones.

The FNM’s dilemma is tragic precisely because it was avoidable.

Reconciliation could have occurred.

Respect could have been shown.

Unity could have been prioritized.

Instead, factionalism prevailed.

And so Bahamians are left with a stark choice: chaos or continuity. Infighting or infrastructure. Pettiness or progress.

The FNM once presented itself as the party of discipline and collective purpose.

Today, it looks like a house divided against itself.

And history is unforgiving to divided houses.