Yesterday morning, on what should have been the serene and reflective morning of Good Friday, I expected a pleasant message from the Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), Fred Mitchell. At first, it appeared that his message might begin on a positive note. But, as has become customary with the PLP’s messaging, the tone quickly took a darker turn.

What began as a story about encouraging a young woman to participate in the democratic process quickly devolved into what has become the hallmark of the PLP’s current campaign: fearmongering disguised as political persuasion.

In recounting his canvassing efforts, Mr. Mitchell described encountering an 18-year-old student who hopes to study medicine but expressed little interest in politics. Rather than inspire the young woman through optimism, policy, or opportunity, Mr. Mitchell instead warned her that if she did not vote for the PLP, the scholarships she hopes to rely on could be cancelled.

That, in essence, is the foundation of the PLP’s current campaign slogan: “Choose Progress.”

But when one examines the messaging closely, it becomes apparent that “Choose Progress” has less to do with progress and far more to do with manufacturing fear.

Mr. Mitchell even went so far as to frame the upcoming election in almost biblical terms, declaring that Bahamians must choose “progress over the work of the devil.” Such rhetoric may make for dramatic political theatre, but it raises a simple question: if the PLP truly had a record of undeniable progress, why rely so heavily on fear?

Because the truth is that when one examines the PLP’s record over the past four and a half years, the results are far less impressive than their slogan suggests.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Grand Bahama.

For years, Grand Bahamians have heard promises of economic revival, transformative development, and renewed opportunity. Yet the island continues to wait. Projects that could have pushed the island forward were instead reviewed, stalled, or abandoned, leaving Grand Bahama residents asking a very simple question: Where exactly is this progress we are being told to choose?

Mr. Mitchell often attempts to deflect attention by accusing the Free National Movement (FNM) of being “servants of the Grand Bahama Port Authority.” The irony of this accusation is difficult to ignore. While the PLP accuses others of allegiance to the Port Authority, Grand Bahama itself has seen little of the economic revival repeatedly promised by this administration.

If the Chairman wishes to tell stories while canvassing, perhaps he should tell the young woman about the government’s own version of “review, stop, and cancel.”

Will he explain how the PLP cancelled the existing arrangements to renovate the Princess Margaret Hospital and returned the funds earmarked for that project—delaying critical improvements to the nation’s healthcare infrastructure?

Will he explain how the government halted or reconsidered several initiatives left in place by the previous Free National Movement (FNM) administration—initiatives that, if carried through, might have moved the country further ahead than it stands today?

Of course, those stories are unlikely to make it into the Chairman’s canvassing speeches. They do not fit neatly into the narrative of a government claiming a “stellar and enviable record.”

I have said before that there is the truth, and then there is PLP truth. Unfortunately, the two rarely occupy the same space.

The Bahamian people deserve better than a government that has spent four and a half years waffling through governance, only to now campaign on a slogan that suggests progress is something voters must protect rather than something they have already experienced.

Progress is not a slogan.
Progress is not fear.
Progress is not telling a young woman that her dreams may disappear unless she votes for a particular party.

If the PLP truly believed in progress, they would not need to frighten Bahamians into choosing it.

They would simply be able to show it.

Instead, after nearly a full term in office, the best argument they can offer the country is a warning: vote for us, or everything may disappear.

That is not progress.

That is political fear dressed up as a campaign motto.

The Progress Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

If politics is often described as a game, then what you’re describing looks less like a fair contest and more like a very deliberate chess strategy—one where the focus isn’t just on winning the board, but on psychologically cornering the opposing king.

In this case, the Progressive Liberal Party appears to be treating Michael Pintard not as a fresh piece on the board, but as if he’s still carrying the baggage of the previous Hubert Minnis administration.

Think of it like this:

In chess, there’s a strategy where instead of attacking your opponent’s current position directly, you repeatedly target squares that were weak in a previous phase of the game—hoping your opponent either hasn’t fully recovered or can be forced into defending something that no longer truly applies. It’s not always about the present board; it’s about dragging the game back into a narrative where your opponent is already compromised.

That’s essentially what this political approach resembles.

The PLP’s messaging strategy, presently, functions like a positional squeeze. Rather than engaging Pintard solely on his current leadership or policies, they keep reopening the “Minnis file”—a kind of political pinned piece. Even though Pintard was not the king at the time, he’s being treated as though he must defend every move made during that administration.

In chess terms, it’s akin to:

• Pinning the knight to the king: Pintard, as leader, is forced to answer for the Minnis era, limiting his ability to maneuver freely with his own agenda.
• Controlling the center through narrative: By keeping public discourse anchored in past controversies, the PLP attempts to dominate the “center squares” of political conversation.
• Forcing defensive play: If the FNM is constantly responding to historical criticisms, they’re not advancing new policy positions—much like a player stuck reacting instead of attacking.

But here’s where the analogy cuts both ways.

A strategy that relies too heavily on past positions can become predictable. In chess, if you keep attacking where the pieces used to be, a skilled opponent can reposition and counterattack—sometimes decisively. If Pintard successfully reframes himself as distinct from the Minnis administration, the FNM could flip the board dynamic entirely, turning what was meant to be a pin into an overextension.

Because in chess—as in politics—overcommitting to one line of attack can leave your own king exposed.

So the real question isn’t just what strategy the PLP is using. It’s whether the FNM, under Pintard, can recognize the pattern and shift the game from defense to initiative.

That’s when the match actually gets interesting.

What is actually interesting is that the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is attacking Micheal Pintard on his time served, though the past leader and also though his present leadership, based on the word of disgruntled former Free National Movement (FNM) supporters, who seem to have abandoned the basic principles of the FNM to now back those of the PLP; which they once despised.

So, the New Day PLP is focused on attempting to drag things back to a time where the felt that Pintard was compromised and attempt to exploit these situations but to date they have not been able to accomplish this.

Also, one of Pintard’s greatest attributes to date has been that he has not allowed the PLP to corner him as he continues to “attack” the questionable/poor governance of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP); thereby distinguishing himself as a real and true leader.

End