THE Progressive Liberal Party attacked the former government’s performance with great success in the run-up to the election. But now that they hold the reigns, Christie and Co find themselves reverting to schoolyard tactics in an attempt to justify adopting some of the very actions they condemned. Insight reports...

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

DURING their five years in opposition, the PLP’s public relations team developed into a lean, mean, attack machine. 

Such was their success in connecting all earthly woes to the actions of the former FNM government, that it seems they are happy to continue along the same line while in office – lashing out at the record of their predecessors whenever called on to justify their own behaviour.

As time goes on, however, there appears to be increasingly little difference between what is being condemned and what justified.

Thus, when there were cries of victimisation over the decision not to renew the contracts of 80 Urban Renewal workers, all allegedly supporters of the opposition, the response was to point out that the FNM did it first.

Michelle Reckley, a senior PLP official and the new head of Urban Renewal in Grand Bahama, noted that while the PLP merely decided not to renew the workers’ contracts, the FNM actually fired all 60 Urban Renewal employees on Grand Bahama after the 2007 election.

Mrs Reckley herself became the subject of a similar justification soon after. When The Tribune asked for clarification on the current status of her role in the party, PLP chairman Bradley Roberts was quick to offer that the FNM also appointed a sitting party official, Ella Lewis, to head Urban Renewal.

When charged to explain why prisoners under police guard were able to escape from the Princess Margaret Hospital, and why Prime Minister Christie has thus far failed to appoint statutory boards, the response was the same – the FNM did it first.

And when the media aired the details of a lawsuit against a government MP, the PLP complained (incorrectly) that journalists remained silent over a court case involving an FNM parliamentarian.

All of which would be fine, had the PLP not attacked the former government, precisely over Urban Renewal firings, the appointment of Ella Lewis, the hospital escapes, and so on.

Let us take the Urban Renewal firing as a case study.

In 2009, Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, now the Minister of Labour, condemned the FNM’s determination to enforce its “vision” at any cost – including at the expense of “Urban Renewal workers who were thought to be PLP supporters – sent home after the general elections and replaced with FNM supporters.”

Fast-forward to 2012 and fellow PLP MP Renward Wells’ explanation of the ousting of yet more Urban Renewal workers: “Oftentimes – Jesus himself put it this way – you don’t take old wine and put it into new skins because at the end of the day, you have to be assured that the personnel you have both embody that vision and are capable of carrying out that vision you have.”

We can only conclude that it is OK to enforce your “vision” for Urban Renewal by taking jobs away from those who don’t support you, only if you didn’t do it first.

Formally known as the “Two Wrongs Fallacy”, this method of defence has been tried, tested and perfected on playgrounds and in sandboxes from time immemorial.

Familiar to parents as the “He/she/they did if first!” justification, it is the automatic response of children who feel they have been denied fair treatment.

And indeed, when adopting this stance the PLP often points out that the FNM was given a free pass by the media every time they “did it first.”

But there is a rather conspicuous problem with this strategy, which is to a great extent responsible for most people abandoning it by the time they arrive at adulthood.

This is, quite simply, that it does not stand up to logical scrutiny. As most children are told in primary school, two wrongs don’t make a right – no matter the circumstances.

Individuals, institutions, governments should not be held to account in relative terms, by comparison with others, but according to their own actions in isolation.

And failing to guard dangerous criminals, being seen to reward partisanship with public service jobs, and adding Bahamians to the already swollen unemployment line – by firing them or otherwise – are all wrongs, by the PLP’s own declared standards.

What’s more, the appeal for retroactive fairness from the media, whether justified or not, betrays an insecurity unbecoming of a government that claims to be confident in its mandate and abilities.

It creates the impression that even in victory, they feel like the underdog when compared with the FNM.

I know many in the PLP believe the press was against them and in cahoots with the former government in the run-up to the election, but the plain fact is they won regardless.

They are the government now, and would do well to grow up and start acting like it.

Perhaps they could begin by reviewing their own criticisms of the former administration over that last five years, with a view to ensuring they don’t continue to transgress their own standards.

In doing so, they could actually take the lead in breaking the cynical political cycle which sees successive governments attack each other, only to get into power and act the same as their predecessors did.

Certainly, instead of sulking in the corner like an unfairly chastised child, the government should at minimum try to remember that proper aim of democracy is not to see that a particular group of politicians gets a fair shake, but to ensure that the public does.

What do you think?

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