Ideological Distinction is Needed in The Bahamas

The need for clear ideological distinctions in Bahamian politics is more than just a matter of debate. It's a pressing issue that demands immediate attention. To facilitate a more straightforward analysis, let's focus on our two dominant political parties in a nonpartisan manner. The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM), our dominant political parties, often blur their ideological lines. As a result, the implemented policies may not always match the stated political ideologies.

Yet, what is a political ideology? A political ideology, as defined by the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, is "a set of ideas, beliefs, values, and opinions, exhibiting a recurring pattern, that competes deliberately as well as unintentionally over providing plans of action for public policy making in an attempt to justify, explain, contest, or change the social and political arrangements and processes of a political community." Simply put, it is a philosophical framework that guides a party's policies and positions, giving voters a clear understanding of what they stand for.

Historically, the PLP and FNM were more ideologically distinct. The PLP, a center-left party and the current governing party rose to power in 1967 during decolonization and Keynesian economics. They advocated fiscal liberalism and social collectivism under 'Bahamianization.' In contrast, the FNM, a center-right party and the main opposition party that came to power in 1992, championed fiscal conservatism and emphasized individualism and privatization as part of a broader trend of the Washington Consensus.

However, as we have entered the 21st century, political parties have yet to hold power for consecutive terms. Various reasons, from administrative missteps to economic performance, have been given to explain this political phenomenon. However, this phenomenon is also due to the failure of any party to communicate an explicitly robust political ideology to Bahamians.

Within the Bahamian political arena, the absence of ideologically solid foundations leads to a form of governance driven by pragmatism rather than principle. While pragmatism has its place as an efficient method of governance, especially in times of existential crises, it should not eclipse the need for a well-defined ideological stance. This lack of clarity leads voters to decide more on personality than policy. It discourages their engagement in the political process.

This phenomenon also contributes to voter apathy. When citizens see their votes as merely a short-term statement rather than an investment in a coherent vision for the future, they become disillusioned. If political parties fail to deliver on their promises, cynicism towards the entire political system grows, further disengaging the electorate.

Our parties' ideological positions also often seem oxymoronic. The FNM, despite its fiscal conservatism, has displayed socially liberal tendencies, as seen in the early administrations under Hubert Ingraham, which included a notable number of female Cabinet ministers. The PLP, known for its fiscal liberalism, has seemingly maintained socially conservative stances until recently. Additionally, both parties operate within a political dichotomy that is broadly socially conservative. These factors can confuse voters and diminish the distinctiveness of each party's policy platform.

Robust ideological platforms have the potential to enhance civic engagement among Bahamians significantly. They can transform elections from mere vote-casting exercises into endorsements of comprehensive political philosophies. Rather than being followers, many voters would also learn more and better appreciate their party's history, political ideology, and subsequent platform. Clear ideological stances can energize the voter base, making elections more competitive and ensuring politicians are held accountable to their declared principles, both by the masses and their party bases. The transformative power of transparent ideological platforms can offer hope for a more engaged and informed electorate, thereby revolutionizing our political landscape.

Robust political ideologies also complement our Westminster parliamentary system, as differing political sides would be better able to debate apparent policy alternatives during legislative sessions. The possession of these ideological platforms by parliamentary parties allows for policy continuity, as each political party's agenda would be predictable. However, this can contribute to developing long-term policy initiatives. Moreover, the governing and opposition parties would challenge each other passionately on their different ideologies, invoking the spirit of dynamism enshrined in our Westminster parliamentary system.

We can draw lessons from the United Kingdom and the United States, where dominant parties maintain distinct political ideologies. The Conservatives and Labour have historically adopted contrasting fiscal policies in the U.K. At the same time, in the U.S., the Democrats and Republicans adhere to progressive and conservative ideologies, respectively. These clear ideological foundations have facilitated significant policy initiatives, such as the U.S. New Deal and the U.K. National Health Service. It was also a robust political ideology that contributed to massive waves of deregulation and privatization in the U.K. and U.S. during the tenure of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan, respectively.

However, we must also be cautious. While adopting and communicating transparent ideological platforms are beneficial, strict adherence to a single political ideology can lead to polarization and hinder bipartisan cooperation among our leaders. The general public can also develop echo chambers that report current events through an ideological lens, giving way to potential bias and misinformation. As a result, discourse among persons can become more focused on 'winning' rather than understanding the other side's perspective. Hyperpolarization can also facilitate the rise of demagogic figures who may not respect democratic norms, as seen with the rise of the MAGA movement under former President Donald Trump in the U.S. To prevent this, it is crucial for political leaders to continually respect the guardrails of democracy and be open to engaging in constructive dialogue, even when there are ideological differences. This caution underscores the importance of balance in political discourse, reassuring the masses that the system, while not perfect, works and that a balanced approach is necessary to prevent polarization and ensure democratic norms are respected.

In conclusion, pragmatism is necessary, but the Bahamian political landscape desperately needs more precise ideological distinctions. A well-defined ideological framework can enhance voter engagement, provide a roadmap for long-term national development, and ensure that politics remains aspirational rather than merely transactional. It can also lead to more effective governance, as clear ideological stances can guide policy decisions and ensure that they align with voter-based values and aspirations for all parties. It's time for our political leaders and policymakers to articulate coherent ideologies that resonate with the aspirations of the Bahamian people.

The views expressed in the article are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any employers and affiliated organizations.