In The Bahamas it is obvious to many political scientists that political philosophy and ideology are not very important to the average Bahamian voter.  It is very similar to church going for members of the Christian faith.

For many people, if you were born into a family of an Anglican, Baptist, or any other denomination, chances are you remain a member or follower of that faith for a very long time.

Well for most people, the philosophy of the party they support is unknown to them.  And sadly, they don’t enquire about it.

For many people under 40 years old, if they were born into a family that supports the Free National Movement or if they are from “the white race,” they have a permanent bond with the FNM.  They have very little interest in policies.

Similarly, if you are from a family that traditionally supported the Progressive Liberal Party, that is the organization you remain attached to.

The guiding philosophy of the FNM is derived from the PLP.  That party was born out of a power struggle between the leader of the PLP, Lynden Pindling and his friend and then Cabinet Minister Cecil Wallace Whitfield.  Pindling was raised on East Street and Whitfield was a so-called Hilltopper from West Street.  Both attended the Government High School in the late 1940s, with Whitfield becoming the head boy.

When Pindling made his speech at the PLP Convention in the British Colonial Hotel in 1970, he stated: “If you can’t fish, cut bait and if you can’t cut bait, get the hell out of the boat.”  Pindling was asserting his leadership and wanted to silence his detractors or those in the party who were a threat to his position.

When it was Whitfield’s time to speak, he criticized the dictatorial tendency of Pindling and announced his resignation as Minister of Education.  He exclaimed, “free at last, my soul is dancing.”  Whitfield was joined by seven other elected PLP Members of Parliament who became known as the Dissident Eight.  They called themselves Free PLPs until after a bye-election in the Mangrove Cay constituency when the late Darrell Rolle of the PLP defeated the late Roston Miller, the candidate of the Free PLP.   After that humiliating defeat, Whitfield held talks with the Chairman of the United Bahamian Party, the late Errington Watkins.

Those two organizations decided to come together to form the Free National Movement.  Today some political analysts say it was a merger, while some stalwart FNM supporters say a new totally new party was formed.  No matter the outcome, the one thing that is certain is that those who were members of the PLP never changed their political philosophy.

With the achievement of Majority Rule in 1967, the philosophy remained the empowerment of Bahamians and to bring about equality of opportunity.  The first Chairman of the PLP, the late Henry Milton Taylor in 1956 put it this way: “Nothing will stop us until the bells of Freedom shall ring from every nook and cranny, and the spectre of political, economic and social slavery, together with the segregation of the races be forever wiped off the face of these fair isles.”

A former Deputy Leader of the PLP, Arthur Hanna said, “the job of the PLP was to wipe every tear from every eye.”

The PLP, for tens of thousands became as a religion, although there has been major encroachment on the base support of the organization over the last two decades.  Under the leadership of Pindling, the PLP remained in power for 25 consecutive years and was only defeated when Hubert Ingraham, a former Chairman and PLP Cabinet Minister who was expelled from the party joined the FNM and became its leader.

In The Bahamas people vote for a political party mainly because they like the leader.  It was under the PLP that every major institution was established pre- and post-independence in The Bahamas in 1973.  To many voters this is meaningless.

There is always a constant campaign going on for who will be Prime Minister.  As Shanto Iyengar, a professor of political science and communication at Stanford University states: “We see elections and campaigns going on almost constantly now.  That can connect people to their sense of political community the way going to religious services once did.  Whether it’s religion or politics, it’s a question of identity and the constant reinforcement of identity.”  Once settled into a political self-image, Iyengar warned that lack of flexibility can settle into partisan views, even at great potential cost.

“Identity does not necessarily equate to self-interest,” he explained. “It often takes something massive to make a shift in that identity.  I think it’s very ominous because what it means is people become robots who are ignoring obvious deficiencies in their own parties and voting for stick candidates.”

Iyengar added that today’s political believers are also willing to overlook any possible disagreements on public policy matters.  They simply follow the party line because their identity dictates that it becomes paramount for them to keep the other side from winning.  There is no doubt that emotions control voting decisions.  Partisanship and an emotional opposition to another side in party politics is not new.  But the level of the polarization is much stronger now due to factors such as a fading of religion and the rise of social media.

Distinguished professor at the University of Florida, Ken Wald in one of his writings concluded that all too often, voting comes down to feelings over analysis, as in religion.