The Democratic National Alliance has managed to establish itself as a real political contender, capable of attracting more support than any third party before it. The big question is, at whose expense?

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

THE PLP took the bait Friday night and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Prime Minister Ingraham suggested he was the late Sir Lynden Pindling's only rightful heir, and the opposition pulled out all the stops to reclaim their patriarch.

They even brought out Sir Lynden's widow to "set the record straight." Dame Marguerite insisted Mr Ingraham could never have been heir to the Pindling throne after being so "mean" to his mentor; treating the father of the nation "so badly."

Throughout the campaign, the PLP have used her to remind their base of the party's past achievements and legacy; playing the "Pindling card" as never before. If it must be a competition between leaders they say, let it be between Mr Ingraham and the ghost of Sir Lynden.

On Friday night, Dame Marguerite was introduced to the crowd by Sir Lynden's real "chosen successor" Perry Christie, who called her "the mother of our party, the grand matriarch of the nation" and the "chief guardian of the Pindling legacy."

And after the grand matriarch had her say - excoriating the Prime Minister as an ungrateful traitor - senior PLPs no doubt left the rally quite satisfied they had re-established full rights to the first leader of an independent Bahamas

I wonder if any of them realised Mr Ingraham was just teasing them.

He wasn't really hatching a sinister plot to steal the PLP's base - an effort he knows would be futile.

At worst, it was an attempt to wrong-foot Perry and Crew, cause them to waste time securing votes they already have, instead of identifying and overcoming the real hurdles that stand between the PLP and electoral success.

And chief among these obstacles, it has become clear over the past few months, is the Democratic National Alliance.

When the DNA was first formed, I was one of the many who saw it as a threat to the governing party and no one else. The conventional wisdom was that while they might not win the election, the new party will certainly mop up a good number of FNMs who've had it rough over the last five years.

After all, the DNA is a youthful party marketed as the fresh, progressive alternative to a stagnant political establishment.

Not too long ago - indeed in the living memory of the vast majority of Bahamians old enough to vote - this was precisely the position occupied by the Free National Movement.

And, Branville McCartney came from the ranks of the FNM, having left over what was seen by the public - rightly or wrongly - as more a clash of personalities with Mr Ingraham than a significant ideological rift with the party.

What his party represented to many, therefore, was a sort of "FNM Lite" - not too heavy on the details, but conveniently free of bad memories accumulated over a prolonged economic recession.

Meanwhile, the DNA was certainly not going to take any hardcore supporters from the PLP, with whom the party enjoys a status of almost Biblical proportions.

Real PLPs are die-hard PLPs - they will not be swayed by ideas or policy promises.

For them, party affiliation isn't something you think about, it's something you feel. It's something you do out of loyalty to national heroes long dead. It's something that defines who you are.

No new party is going to come along and erode that base.

Mr McCartney did give it a shot with his opposition to the FNM's Marital Rape Bill and his talk of the DNA being divinely inspired - transparent attempts to appeal to a grass-roots religious bloc for which the PLP has long been the party of choice.

In the end, his appeals to the jumper crowd succeeded in turning off many, many FNMs who'd considered supporting the DNA, while still leaving Mr McCartney with as much chance of cracking the rock-solid PLP base as he does of parting Nassau Harbour, divine credentials aside.

The consensus among pundits was therefore that the DNA would not significantly affect the PLP's chances, and could succeed in stealing just enough votes from the FNM to ensure a change of government come election day.

But then a strange trend began to emerge.

More and more cars were spotted driving around flying PLP yellow, AND the green flags of the DNA.

People were seen wearing PLP bracelets and DNA bracelets on the same wrist.

Then green banners started going up in areas that had been yellow since Independence.

Thankfully, as I was at a complete loss to explain this, a friend with far more political savvy than I possess broke it down.

"They're dying off," she said. "The PLP base is as dedicated as ever, but it's shrinking every year."

"The new generation might be born into PLP families, but they don't remember Sir Lynden. They don't remember Independence. They are not fanatical and unquestioning supporters."

She has a point. To have been swept up in the spirit of Majority Rule and Independence that inspired life-long party devotion in so many Bahamians, you had to have been a young adult or older in the early 1970s.

Meanwhile, the FNM's base in its present form - defined to a large extent by the cult of personality surrounding Mr Ingraham - was really only formed after he left the PLP; that is to say, in the late 1980s. There is a great deal of fuel left in the tank so to speak.

It stands to reason, therefore, that if the PLP want to win on May 7, they cannot simply rely on their base and absolutely must find a way to gain the confidence of the young people, the first time voters.

Unfortunately, these are the very people the DNA seems to be snatching away.

All three contenders talk about "the youth" all the time, but the established parties face a particularly difficult task.

It isn't so much about what you promise or don't promise - to young people, new things are just cool, the DNA included.

Good thing for the FNM they don't need to rely on this constituency as much as their rivals.

As for the PLP, May 7 is almost upon us and they will need to work at fever-pitch to win over young voters if they hope to stand a chance.

Certainly, they do themselves no favours by wasting what precious little time remains, jumping at every shadow Mr Ingraham casts from the podium.

What do you think?

Email your questions and comments to pnunez@tribunemedia.net or join the conversation on tribune242.com/insight