Impending by-election: FRIGHTENED PINTARD TO DEATH!

The sudden passing of Vaughn Miller has ripped a gaping hole in the political fabric of The Bahamas. This is not just a moment for reflection, but a time of urgent decision-making and sober statesmanship. It has laid bare the vulnerabilities of an opposition caught off guard and the precarious position of a leader already on shaky ground. Michael Pintard is now in a crucible of contradictions, where every move is a delicate balance between political survival and party duty.

Let us not mince words: the FNM is confused, and Pintard’s posture is desperate. On the one hand, the law demands that a by-election writ be issued.. On the other hand, the FNM does not have the resources—or perhaps the appetite—to wage a bruising by-election campaign with a general election looming barely a year away. It is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma, and Pintard is caught in the vice.

Consider the political arithmetic: if Pintard contests the by-election and loses, that would be the second time he has been defeated in such a contest since becoming party leader, and his critics would seize on it as proof he cannot lead the party to victory. Worse, a public defeat in Golden Isles would embolden internal rivals, sap morale, and weaken his negotiating position within the party heading into a national campaign.

But to decline to contest is to lose a vital voice for the constituents—or worse, to appear weak, cowardly, or disconnected from the voters.

This is not theoretical. Pintard, as reported in the media, has already publicly urged the Prime Minister to bypass the by-election and call a general election instead. He frames this as a matter of fiscal prudence and national sensibility: Why spend millions on a single seat when the country faces real economic challenges? But watch closely—his argument hides a far more self-interested impulse.

In effect, he is crying for an early national election to escape the trap of the by-election. Seekers of political advantage seldom make such pleas purely out of principle. Pintard is trying to spin the narrative as one of responsibility, but the subtext is clear: protect me from my vulnerability.

And the weight of internal party dynamics adds even more pressure.

Pintard has already lost considerable support among party loyalists for not granting a nomination to former Prime Minister Hubert Minnis in the last cycle. That decision has left a fissure in the rank and file. Now, as the by-election looms, those tensions threaten to widen. If key elements of the party see his leadership as weak or indecisive, they may begin to hedge their bets, or worse, quietly align with alternative centres of influence.

Let’s be frank: this is a credibility crisis for Pintard. It’s one thing to lose an election, but quite another to be perceived as evading one. Already, voices in the public sphere are suggesting he’s ‘afraid‘ of a by-election loss rather than committed to the democratic process. Such accusations are not easily dispelled. The optics are harsh, and the risk to his credibility is significant.

But Pintard is putting all his chips on a gamble: he would rather not contest than go down in flames under an onslaught from a resurgent PLP. He hopes that by forcing the call for a general election, he can shift the battlefield on his terms, regain some narrative control, and preserve his legitimacy. Yet this is a gamble with extremely high risks: the Prime Minister is under no constitutional compulsion to accede. The governing party may refuse to bend. And if Pintard overplays his hand or is perceived as grandstanding, he could lose more than a by-election. He could lose the faith of the country. More importantly, his actions could significantly impact the FNM’s chances in the upcoming general election, potentially leading to a loss of power.

There is also the matter of obligation. The residents of Golden Isles are entitled to representation. Denying them a by-election, or practically stalling the process with procedural delays, raises democratic questions. Voters might see such stalling as cynicism, as subverting their voice for political expediency. If Pintard is not careful, public sympathy could tilt against him, and by extension, the FNM. This could further damage the party’s fragile image, making winning the upcoming general election even more challenging.

In short, Pintard finds himself between a rock and a hard place. In trying to avoid a damaging by-election loss, he risks the charge of cowardice. In contesting it, he risks a humiliating defeat that could unseat him as an effective leader. And, given his shaky standing internally and his fractured support base, the margin for error is vanishingly slim. Either way, his decision could significantly impact his personal political career, potentially leading to a loss of leadership within the party or a tarnished reputation that could hinder his future political endeavours.

When a political leader publicly pleads for an early general election to avoid an immediate contest, it’s a clear sign of the gravity of the situation. This is not just a strategic move; it’s an admission of fear. Whether Pintard can recover from this moment and whether the FNM will stand by him instead of seeking a new leader remains to be seen. But the fallout from this moment could shape his leadership and the party’s trajectory into 2026.

The question now: will Pintard step up, take the hit, fight in Golden Isles and risk everything? Or will he remain cautious, retreating to the sidelines and letting the PLP claim momentum? Either way, he’s running out of hiding places—and the political storm is closing in.

Post Views: 609