It appears that Bahamian politics has entered a realm that can only be described as deeply troubling — and, at times, downright absurd.

And before anyone gets offended, this is not an accusation that Bahamians are uniquely incapable of rational thought. Political tribalism, blind loyalty and the rejection of inconvenient facts are hardly exclusive to The Bahamas. They exist in democracies around the world.

What should concern us, however, is the extent to which our political loyalties increasingly appear to determine what we are willing to believe.

That is a dangerous place for any society to find itself.

The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, writing during the rise of Nazi Germany, reflected deeply on what he called stupidity. Importantly, Bonhoeffer was not simply talking about a lack of intelligence. He was describing something far more dangerous: the surrender of independent judgment.

His argument was essentially that a person can be perfectly capable of thinking, yet surrender that ability to a political movement, leader, ideology or group. At that point, slogans can replace thought, loyalty can replace judgment, and facts that contradict one’s beliefs can simply be dismissed.

And perhaps that is where we should pause and look at ourselves.

FIRST: OUTSOURCING OUR THINKING

When we allow a political party, politician or political tribe to tell us what to think about every issue, we have stopped exercising independent judgment.

If the party says it is good, we say it is good.

If the party says it is bad, we say it is bad.

If our political opponents make the identical argument, suddenly it becomes unacceptable.

That is not political conviction.

That is intellectual dependence.

And the irony is that some of the people who behave this way today would have fiercely condemned the very same behaviour when their political opponents were doing it.

SECOND: WILLFUL IGNORANCE

Ignorance is not necessarily stupidity.

None of us knows everything. That is perfectly normal.

The problem begins when we encounter information that challenges what we believe and deliberately refuse to investigate it.

We don’t read the report.

We don’t check the numbers.

We don’t examine the evidence.

We simply repeat what our political side has told us.

And when presented with facts that contradict our position, we dismiss them because they came from “the other side.”

That isn’t knowledge.

It is wilful ignorance dressed up as political loyalty.

THIRD: CONFORMITY

Then there is the pressure to belong.

We see what everyone around us is saying, so we say it too.

We repeat the same slogans.

We defend the same people.

We condemn the same people.

We laugh at the same political jokes.

We attack anyone who dares to question the accepted position.

Eventually, being part of the crowd becomes more important than determining whether the crowd is actually right.

And that is where conformity becomes particularly dangerous: truth becomes secondary to belonging.

Bonhoeffer’s warning was not that every person is inherently stupid. In fact, his reflections specifically caution against treating the majority of people as stupid in every circumstance. His concern was what happens when people surrender their inner independence to the power and influence surrounding them.

SO, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

I believe we need to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions.

Can we criticize our own political party?

Can we acknowledge when our preferred politician is wrong?

Can we accept a fact even when it benefits our political opponent?

Can we change our position when the evidence changes?

Can we disagree with someone politically without assuming that they are stupid, evil or unpatriotic?

And most importantly:

Are we thinking for ourselves — or are we simply repeating what our political tribe has instructed us to think?

A healthy democracy does not require everyone to agree.

It requires people to think.

It requires citizens willing to question their own side.

It requires the courage to say, “I was wrong.”

It requires us to value truth over tribalism, evidence over emotion and principle over party.

Because political parties are temporary.

Politicians come and go.

Governments change.

But the habits of thought we allow to take root in our society can remain for generations.

We cannot continue down a road where political loyalty becomes more important than intellectual honesty and still expect to build a mature, civilized democracy.

The Bahamas does not need more people who simply know which side they are on.

We need more people willing to ask whether their side is right.

Think.

Question.

Verify.

Challenge.

And when the facts prove us wrong, have the courage to change our minds.

That is not weakness.

That is citizenship.

END

I sat down to read the latest from Fred Mitchell — a press statement urging calm, praising “the professionals,” and scolding the opposition for “creating anxiety” over the Bahamas Power and Light mess. Charming. If only rhetoric powered a grid. 

It is simply amazing that now the PLP’s chairman would like “all hands of deck” and would like for persons to put politics aside on this matter when he was the first one to make it political and creating unnecessary anxiety; “State of collapse – Mitchell blames FNM for power owes” – The Nassau Guardian 30th July 2026.

Let’s cut to the chase: asking everyone to put politics aside while absolving your own party of responsibility is rich. Mitchell now wants “all hands-on deck” and for people to trust the experts — after the PLP’s loud energy-reform promises, after the pronouncements, after the changes that, by all appearances, left the system more fragile, not less. And no one is blaming the experts; the ones being blamed are those whose failed policies took us this far back.

And yet the chairman’s statement reads like a moral sermon: “come with clean hands,” “confess our sins,” “let us give the professionals an honest opportunity.” Fine. Start by putting the facts on the table. Publish the timelines, the emergency fixes, the budgets, the procurement records. Show the public the concrete steps being taken to finish transmission and distribution upgrades that everyone agrees are needed. Until then, pious calls for unity sound suspiciously like finger-pointing in a slow-motion collapse and we can all agree that the PLP’s hands are always “clean”, now this may be because they have never done anything wrong – that they would like you to believe or it is more likely because they really do not do any “heavy lifting”.

If Mitchell truly wanted bipartisanship, he’d show leadership by owning what his administration can fix immediately, admitting what it inherited, and committing to a clear, accountable plan with deadlines and costs. Instead, we get the rhetorical equivalent of a beach recommendation while the lights go out.

Final brew thought: if you ask for trust, earn it. Otherwise “leave it to the professionals” is just polite shorthand for “let us avoid responsibility.” The country deserves better than platitudes. It deserves schedules, budgets, and functioning substations.

END

One would have thought that, out of respect for Emancipation Day, Fred Mitchell might have taken a day off from his now familiar pastime of political revisionism.

Apparently not.

Instead, Bahamians were treated to yet another broadside from the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), this time directed at the Free National Movement (FNM), its leadership, and even the staff of The Nassau Guardian. Their apparent crime? Reporting and scrutinizing Mr. Mitchell’s own public comments on the continuing Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) crisis.

Imagine attacking the messenger because the message was your own.

What is truly astonishing is Mr. Mitchell’s latest attempt to convince Bahamians that today’s electricity crisis is somehow the FNM’s fault, despite the PLP having been in office since September 2021. Governments inherit challenges—that is true. But governments also inherit opportunities. The question is what they do with them.

When the Davis administration took office, BPL certainly was not a perfect utility. Decades of underinvestment under successive governments had left major structural issues. However, the FNM administration had begun implementing a broader reform strategy that included fuel hedging, refinancing efforts, and plans for new generation intended to stabilize electricity costs and improve reliability.

The fuel hedging programme, negotiated with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), had already provided consumers with unusually stable fuel charges during a period of volatile oil prices. Planned follow-on hedge transactions scheduled after the 2021 general election were not executed by the incoming administration—a decision the Davis administration has defended but one that has remained highly controversial because critics argue it contributed to significantly higher fuel costs.

Whether one agrees with that decision or not, one fact is difficult to escape: the PLP did not continue every major element of the strategy it inherited. It chose a different course.

Five years later, Bahamians are asking a very simple question.

Has that course produced a better BPL?

The answer is written every time another island experiences widespread outages, every time businesses lose revenue because the power disappears, and every time families wonder whether the next thunderstorm will once again leave them sitting in darkness.

Mr. Mitchell insists the FNM “tried and failed.”

Perhaps.

But what exactly should we call five years of PLP management?

Because if the FNM supposedly failed after beginning a reform programme, what word describes an administration that dismantled significant parts of that programme and has still not delivered the reliable electricity system Bahamians were promised?

Mr. Mitchell also declared:

“The PLP does not stick its finger in the wind and pander…”

Indeed.

At this point it seems less like finger-in-the-wind politics and more like reading tea leaves—or perhaps consulting bones—hoping that political spin will somehow generate electricity where sound policy has not.

One has to wonder whether this statement is intended to justify not only the continuing problems at BPL, but also the government’s handling of other major national projects that have attracted public criticism over the past five years.

The irony is almost too rich.

Mr. Mitchell now complains that newspapers and political opponents have twisted his words.

No, Mr. Mitchell.

They quoted them.

There is a significant difference.

If your own words produce headlines you dislike, perhaps the problem is not the headlines.

Perhaps it is the words.

Political leadership requires accountability, especially after five years in office. The public is entitled to ask difficult questions, and the media is entitled to report the answers—or the absence of them.

Instead of blaming the FNM, blaming the newspapers, or blaming anyone else who dares point out the obvious, perhaps the PLP Chairman should answer the question Bahamians continue to ask:

After nearly five years in government, if the PLP inherited a foundation it believed was flawed, where is the stronger one it promised to build?

Because blaming yesterday’s government does not keep today’s lights on especially when that government is one administration removed.

The Bahamian people deserve better.

END

After receiving my $8.45 Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) credit, I was almost overcome with gratitude. I briefly considered sending Prime Minister Philip Davis a thank-you card. But sarcasm aside, that isn’t today’s issue.

Today’s issue is a statement by Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell, who has once again attempted to convince Bahamians that the current electricity crisis should be laid at the feet of the previous Free National Movement (FNM) administration.

According to reports, Mitchell said New Providence’s electrical grid is now “in a state of collapse” because the FNM “did nothing” to fix it, and therefore FNM Chairman Dr. Duane Sands has no standing to criticize the current administration.

It is a clever piece of political wordplay.

The implication is not merely that the FNM left behind problems. Every government inherits problems. The implication is that five years into the Davis administration, the PLP bears little responsibility for the condition of the very system it has controlled, managed and repeatedly promised to transform.

That is where the argument begins to collapse.

Five Years Is a Long Time

The Davis administration has been in office since September 2021.

During that period, energy reform has been one of the government’s flagship initiatives. The administration has repeatedly announced that it was rebuilding BPL, modernizing the transmission and distribution (T&D) network, and putting the country on a path toward a more reliable electricity supply.

Indeed, the government’s own position has consistently been that the transmission and distribution grid required major investment and that this work was being undertaken through the Bahamas Grid Company and its partnership with Island Grid/Pike.

So, Mr. Mitchell cannot simultaneously argue that:

• the PLP has spent five years fixing the grid; and
• every major failure today remains solely the fault of the FNM.

Both statements cannot be true.

What the FNM Actually Left Behind

There is also important context.

By the time the Minnis administration left office in September 2021, the new Wärtsilä Station A plant had already been commissioned, providing approximately 132 MW of generation capacity under its operating agreement.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of the FNM’s energy policy is a legitimate political debate. The Davis administration itself has heavily criticized the Wärtsilä project, alleging deficiencies in its execution and maintenance.

But that debate concerns generation.

Fred Mitchell’s latest comments concern the transmission and distribution grid—the poles, substations and lines that actually deliver electricity.

That is precisely the area the Davis administration said it intended to overhaul.

Whatever Happened to Pike?

This is where the unanswered questions begin.

The PLP introduced one of the largest energy reform initiatives in modern Bahamian history by entering into a long-term arrangement involving Pike Corporation, operating through Island Grid, to modernize New Providence’s transmission and distribution system. The agreement was promoted as a transformational solution to the grid’s long-standing weaknesses.

Yet in 2026, reports emerged that Island Grid had withdrawn from its management role, senior executives including Eric Pike stepped down, and questions immediately arose about the future of the project. Government officials insisted that investment would continue but offered limited public detail on why the management arrangement ended.

Those developments raise legitimate questions.

• What exactly happened with the Pike arrangement?
• Why did the management relationship end so abruptly?
• What obligations remain under the agreement?
• What measurable improvements have been achieved after millions of dollars in investment?
• Why has the government been reluctant to provide comprehensive public answers regarding the contract?
• What was the state of grid with Pikes sudden departure?

These are questions of accountability—not politics.

Transparency becomes even more important given that controversy has already surrounded whether the full Pike agreement had been tabled in Parliament, with public statements by senior government officials creating confusion over its status.

Responsibility Cannot Be Deferred Forever

Governments frequently remind us that “government is continuous” when taking credit for projects begun by previous administrations.

If that principle applies to successes, it must also apply to responsibility.

After nearly five years in office, the condition of BPL’s transmission and distribution system can no longer be explained solely by decisions made before September 2021.

At some point, ownership replaces inheritance.

At some point, execution replaces promises.

At some point, voters stop asking what was inherited and start asking what was accomplished.

The Real Question

Instead of another voice note blaming an administration that left office five years ago, Bahamians deserve a straightforward accounting.

What measurable improvements has the Davis administration delivered to New Providence’s electrical grid?

What became of the Pike strategy that was supposed to modernize it?

Why has transparency surrounding that agreement remained a recurring issue?

And if the grid is, as Mr. Mitchell now claims, truly “in a state of collapse,” after five years of PLP stewardship, isn’t the first place to look not the Opposition benches—but the Cabinet table?

Political blame may generate headlines.

Reliable electricity powers a country.

The Bahamian people deserve more of the latter and considerably less of the former.

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

END

One of the more refreshing moments in today’s public debate did not come from a politician. It came from Gowon Bowe, Chief Executive Officer of Fidelity Bank & Trust International Limited Group, whose comments in The Nassau Guardian amounted to something many Bahamians have been asking for all along: evidence, transparency and accountability.

That should not be a controversial request. Yet, somehow, it has become one.

Bowe was responding to the Davis administration’s projection that it will end the 2026/2027 fiscal year with a $223.1 million budget surplus. His comments came after Fitch Ratings, one of the world’s leading credit rating agencies, publicly questioned those projections and instead forecast that The Bahamas is more likely to record a fiscal deficit of approximately $64 million rather than a surplus.

According to The Nassau Guardian, Bowe observed:

“None of the international observers have adopted the position that the government has been articulating in their budget communications.”

He added that rather than becoming defensive, the government should ask a simple question:

“Why not?”

Even more importantly, Bowe pointed out that the issue is not necessarily whether the government’s projections are wrong. The real issue is whether the information made available to the public actually supports those optimistic conclusions.

That is a perfectly reasonable position.

In fact, it is the very foundation of responsible governance.

Fool Me Once…

My skepticism has very little to do with political preference and everything to do with recent history.

This is not the first time the Davis administration has projected a budget surplus.

For the past two budget cycles, government officials have repeatedly expressed confidence that they were on track to achieve a surplus or balanced fiscal outcome. Yet the final fiscal results did not fully match those optimistic projections. While the government’s fiscal position has undoubtedly improved compared with the severe deficits experienced during the COVID-19 period, the promised surplus has remained elusive.

That history naturally raises a simple question:

Why should Bahamians simply accept another surplus projection without stronger supporting evidence?

That is precisely the point Bowe appears to be making.

He is not saying the government cannot achieve its target.

He is saying that the public evidence currently available does not sufficiently support the government’s conclusion.

Those are two very different things that the average PLP supporter seems unable to differentiate.

“Provide to Who?”

Perhaps the most astonishing response came not from government officials, but from one of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) supporters.

This person question was remarkably simple:

“Provide to who?”

Think about that for a moment.

Provide evidence… to whom?

To the taxpayers?

To the voters?

To Parliament?

To the businesses making investment decisions?

To international credit agencies?

Or perhaps to the Bahamian people who are ultimately paying the bills?

In any healthy democracy, the answer should be obvious.

Governments are accountable to the people.

Transparency is not an optional public relations exercise.

It is a democratic obligation.

When respected financial institutions, independent economists or international credit agencies question government projections, the proper response is not indignation or blind demands for trust.

The appropriate response is evidence.

A Familiar Pattern

Unfortunately, this dismissive attitude toward legitimate public questions is becoming increasingly familiar.

Consider the government’s handling of its plan to recruit hundreds of teachers from Ghana.

Few reasonable people argued that additional teachers were unnecessary. The concern expressed by many educators was the apparent lack of meaningful consultation with local teachers and the Bahamas Union of Teachers before the initiative was announced.

Good governance is not simply about arriving at the right destination.

It is also about respecting the people affected by the journey.

Consultation.

Transparency.

Professional courtesy.

These are not signs of weakness.

They are signs of competent leadership.

Yet increasingly, asking questions seems to be treated as an act of political hostility rather than civic responsibility.

Trust Is Earned

No government—PLP, FNM or otherwise—should expect citizens to suspend critical thinking simply because a minister stands behind a podium and declares that everything is on track.

Trust is earned.

Credibility is built.

And confidence comes from providing evidence that allows independent observers to arrive at the same conclusion as the government itself.

That, incidentally, was exactly the point Gowon Bowe was making.

He was not asking Bahamians to distrust the government.

He was encouraging the government to provide enough information so that trust becomes the natural conclusion—not a compulsory act of faith.

Until then, Bahamians are left with an uncomfortable question:

If even independent international analysts remain unconvinced by the government’s numbers, why should the public be expected to applaud first and ask questions later?

The Bahamian deserves better.

END

In 2016, after The Bahamas was downgraded to non-investment grade (“junk”) by Standard & Poor’s, then-Prime Minister Perry Christie famously declared that it was up to his government to “prove them wrong.” History records the statement. Whether his administration ultimately did is a matter of political debate.

Fast forward to 2026, and Bahamians once again find themselves watching a government insist that the experts simply don’t see the full picture.

This week’s headlines in The Nassau Guardian tell the story:

“Rating agency projects deficit — $64 million deficit this year, Fitch says, not $223.1 million surplus government projects.”

The disagreement is not a few million dollars.

It is $287 million.

The Davis administration’s 2026/27 Budget forecasts a $223.1 million surplus, while Fitch Ratings projects a $64 million deficit for the very same fiscal year. That is a swing of nearly $300 million between what the government expects and what one of the world’s leading credit-rating agencies believes is more likely.

To be fair, Fitch did not suggest that The Bahamas is moving in the wrong direction overall. On the contrary, it acknowledged continuing fiscal consolidation and declining government debt. The disagreement is over the pace of that improvement—not whether improvement is occurring. Fitch simply concludes that the government’s timetable for reaching a surplus is too optimistic.

That distinction matters.

Because this is not occurring in a vacuum.

Last year, the government confidently projected a $75 million surplus for FY2025/26. However, as of today, the audited year-end figures have not yet been released, meaning there is still no official confirmation that the projected surplus was actually achieved. Fitch’s latest assessment likewise indicates it does not expect that surplus to have materialized.

Yet despite that uncertainty, the government has responded with confidence.

Finance Minister Michael Halkitis has said:

“We stand by our projections.”

That is certainly the government’s prerogative.

But it also raises a straightforward question.

If last year’s projected surplus has not yet been demonstrated with final results—and Fitch believes it was overly optimistic—why should Bahamians simply assume this year’s projection will prove accurate?

This is not about rooting against the country.

Every Bahamian should hope the government delivers a surplus.

The question is whether hope should replace evidence.

Ironically, the government’s own 2026 Fiscal Strategy Report acknowledges that previous fiscal forecasts have shown a “systematic optimistic bias,” noting that deficits have historically been underestimated because revenues often fall short of expectations while expenditures exceed projections. The report even warns that there remains a meaningful risk that future fiscal outcomes could be weaker than the baseline forecast.

That admission makes Fitch’s caution appear less like pessimism and more like a recognition of the same forecasting risks identified by the government itself.

So, Bahamians are left with two competing stories.

The government says a $223.1 million surplus is coming.

Fitch says a $64 million deficit is more likely.

One side is asking the public to trust its projections.

The other is asking investors to temper their expectations.

Ultimately, only the final audited public accounts will determine who was closer to reality.

Until then, perhaps the better question is not whether the government can achieve a surplus.

It is whether a government that has yet to conclusively demonstrate it met its previous surplus target has earned the public’s confidence that this much larger one is within reach. That is a question for voters, taxpayers, and investors alike.

The Bahamian people deserve better.

END

There is an old saying that “success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.” Judging by the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP’s) latest political messaging, that saying has never been more appropriate.

PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell recently painted an optimistic picture of Grand Bahama, citing rising property values, positive comments from Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce President Ralph Hepburn, Carnival Corporation’s economic impact, and reports that Norwegian Cruise Line has completed the purchase of the former Xanadu Beach Resort with plans for redevelopment.

No Bahamian should object to good news for Grand Bahama. Every investment is welcome. Every job created is needed. Every redevelopment is a step in the right direction.

The question is not whether these developments are positive.

The question is: who deserves the credit?

The proposed redevelopment of the former Xanadu property did not suddenly materialize because the PLP discovered it in 2026. Public reports and individuals familiar with the transaction have long indicated that discussions surrounding the Donato family’s property had been underway for years, with negotiations predating the current administration. While the reported purchaser may ultimately complete the transaction during the PLP’s term, that does not mean the government originated or negotiated the private commercial sale.

Yet once again, the PLP appears eager to wrap itself in the ribbon of achievements that were already moving before it arrived.

Ironically, whenever the government is challenged over problems that originated under previous administrations, we are reminded that “governments are continuous.”

Apparently that principle only applies when it is politically convenient.

If governments are indeed continuous—and they are—then continuity works both ways.

It means a government may inherit projects already underway.

It also means a government inherits unresolved problems and is ultimately accountable for addressing them while it is in office.

By that same standard, Bahamians are entitled to ask:

What is the status of the long-promised redevelopment of the Grand Lucayan Resort?

Where does the replacement of the Grand Bahama International Airport now stand?

What measurable progress has been made beyond repeated announcements and photo opportunities?

These are projects the current administration has repeatedly highlighted as priorities. After nearly five years in office, the public is justified in asking for timelines, milestones, and results—not simply promises of what is still to come.

The selective application of “government continuity” raises another interesting question.

Jamahl Strachan, now Chairman of the Beaches and Parks Authority, has publicly defended his predecessor, McKell Bonaby, amid continuing public criticism regarding the Authority’s financial management.

But if governments—and by extension, public institutions—are continuous, then leadership carries more than the privilege of inheriting the office. It also inherits the responsibility to answer legitimate questions from the public.

Defending previous management is one thing.

Providing transparency and accountability is another.

The Bahamian people deserve explanations—not simply political solidarity.

Perhaps that is the lesson Mr. Mitchell unintentionally taught us.

If the PLP wishes to celebrate investments that began before it took office because “governments are continuous,” then it cannot suddenly abandon that philosophy whenever difficult questions arise about projects that have stalled, public agencies under its control, or controversies inherited—or continued—under its own watch.

Continuity is not a political buffet where governments select only the accomplishments they like and leave the responsibility behind.

It is an obligation.

And that obligation belongs to whoever occupies the office today.

The Commonwealth of The Bahamas deserves better.

END

When the Davis administration assured Bahamians that it was prepared for the demands of the 2026 summer season, many expected that preparation would be reflected in a stable electricity supply. Instead, residents across the country have endured repeated power outages, while affected customers on New Providence have been offered an $8.45 electricity bill rebate—a gesture that has been criticized by many as symbolic rather than substantive.

For the people of Eleuthera, however, there has not even been a rebate. Instead, they have once again been offered something they have heard before another promise that relief is on the way.

Speaking this week, Minister of Public Works and Utilities and Central and South Eleuthera MP Clay Sweeting expressed optimism that a power purchase agreement signed with EA Energy Limited would eventually stabilize electricity on the island.

As reported by The Nassau Guardian, Minister Sweeting stated:

“We’re excited about what EA Energy will bring to Eleuthera because along with development comes the need for power production… The equipment is on site… to commence the solarization there, as well as the LNG project.”

The facts surrounding the project are largely undisputed.

The Davis administration signed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with EA Energy Limited for the construction, ownership and operation of an 8.7-megawatt solar generation facility together with a 19.97-megawatt LNG-powered generating facility on Eleuthera. The project forms part of the government’s wider energy reform programme, which it has repeatedly described as one of its signature accomplishments.

Site clearing was publicly announced in 2025, and government officials have consistently maintained that financing for the project is secured. Yet, nearly a year after those announcements, there remains no publicly confirmed completion date for the project, while Eleutherians continue to experience significant power interruptions.

That naturally raises a question.

If the project was intended to provide meaningful relief, why are residents still being asked to wait?

Even more importantly, why should Bahamians simply accept yet another assurance that “progress is happening” without being given a clear timeline for completion?

This is not the first time the government has announced measures intended to stabilize Eleuthera’s electricity supply.

In late 2024, the government announced the installation of approximately one megawatt of rental generation on Harbour Island following persistent complaints from residents and businesses about unreliable electricity. That temporary generation was presented as an immediate solution while longer-term infrastructure was developed.

Today, the public deserves an update.

Is that rental generation still operating?

Has it delivered the level of stability that was promised?

If not, what became of that initiative?

These are not unreasonable questions. They are questions of accountability.

Instead, the public is once again being asked to focus on what is coming rather than what has—or has not—already been delivered.

The government’s political messaging has consistently portrayed its energy policy as proactive. Yet the lived experience of many Bahamians tells a different story. Residents on New Providence continue to endure outages despite assurances that the country was prepared for the summer peak demand period. Family Islands such as Eleuthera continue to face recurring disruptions while being told that relief is just around the corner.

Governments are not judged solely by the number of agreements they sign or the announcements they make. They are judged by results.

This administration has frequently pointed to inherited challenges within Bahamas Power and Light. There is no dispute that BPL’s infrastructure required significant investment long before 2021. However, after nearly five years in office, the Davis administration must increasingly answer for its own record rather than simply the record it inherited.

The question is no longer what was inherited.

The question is what has been delivered.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable political reminder comes from the 2021 general election campaign.

During that campaign, Prime Minister Philip Davis repeatedly argued that meaningful progress for constituencies like Eleuthera required electing PLP representatives and supporting a PLP government. The implication was unmistakable: political alignment with the government would accelerate development and improve public services.

Five years later, many Eleutherians may reasonably ask whether those expectations have been fulfilled.

Instead of dependable electricity, they continue to receive explanations.

Instead of clear completion dates, they receive optimism.

Instead of measurable progress, they are offered another promise.

Meanwhile, customers on New Providence are being asked to appreciate an $8.45 rebate—an amount many believe falls far short of compensating households and businesses for spoiled food, damaged appliances, disrupted commerce, and the inconvenience caused by repeated outages.

Eleutherians are not even being offered that.

They are simply being told to wait.

And after years of waiting, it is entirely reasonable for Bahamians to ask whether the government underestimated the scale of the problem, overpromised during the campaign, or failed to deliver the urgency that the situation demanded.

Because at some point, “progress is happening” must become “progress has happened.”

For the people of Eleuthera, that day cannot come soon enough.

The Bahamian people deserve better.

END

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would like Bahamians to believe that the Bahamas Power & Light (BPL) liquefied natural gas (LNG) project is one of its great energy achievements.

There’s just one awkward detail.

The country was already headed down the LNG road before the PLP took office.

During the Minnis administration, BPL selected Shell North America through a competitive procurement process to develop a gas-to-power solution at Clifton Pier. The objective was straightforward: replace expensive heavy fuel oil with LNG to lower generation costs, improve efficiency, and reduce emissions.

It wasn’t a perfect project.

Negotiations between the FNM government and Shell had not been completed before the 2021 general election. Critical commercial terms remained unresolved, and the project had not yet reached financial close. The PLP also criticized the Minnis administration for proceeding with land acquisitions for the proposed site while negotiations were still ongoing, arguing that purchasing land before finalizing the commercial agreement exposed taxpayers to unnecessary risk.

Those were legitimate questions deserving public answers.

But here’s the question that deserves equal attention:

Did those concerns justify effectively resetting the clock?

Instead of building on the work already completed, the Davis administration allowed the previous negotiations and land arrangement to collapse. The project was subsequently restructured into a new public-private partnership involving Shell and FOCOL, with financing arranged through a consortium of Bahamian banks.

Fast forward nearly five years.

We’re still talking about building an LNG terminal at Clifton Pier.

Think about that.

After years of announcements, consultations, ceremonies, press conferences, artist renderings, and enough “New Energy Era” slogans to power a marketing department, the destination remains almost exactly where it was before the PLP entered office.

The difference is the calendar.

To be fair, governments are entitled to improve projects they inherit. If the PLP believed the commercial structure needed strengthening or Bahamian financing should play a larger role, those are reasonable policy decisions.

But improving a project and delaying a project are not the same thing.

Every additional year that BPL remained dependent on expensive heavy fuel oil meant Bahamians continued paying some of the region’s highest electricity costs while enduring unreliable service and repeated load shedding.

That’s the opportunity cost rarely mentioned during ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

The PLP now celebrates the LNG terminal as a transformative investment valued at approximately $379 million.

Wonderful.

But if LNG was the right answer in 2026, wasn’t it also the right answer in 2021?

If the original proposal genuinely had flaws—and every major infrastructure project has some—the obvious question becomes why those deficiencies couldn’t have been negotiated away instead of allowing the entire initiative to unravel before starting over.

This isn’t about giving one political party all the credit or all the blame.

The FNM deserves criticism for not completing negotiations before leaving office.

The PLP deserves scrutiny for whether its decision to abandon the existing framework unnecessarily delayed the country’s energy transition.

The real victims of political resets are ordinary Bahamians.

While successive governments debated who deserved the headlines, families continued opening eye-watering electricity bills, businesses struggled with operating costs, and the national grid lurched from one crisis to another.

Perhaps the greatest irony is this:

After years of insisting the FNM’s approach was fundamentally flawed, the Davis administration has ultimately arrived at the very same conclusion as its predecessor—

The Bahamas needed LNG.

The only question left is whether politics delayed that conclusion by several expensive years.

The Bahamian people deserve better.

END

Mahatma Gandhi: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Sometimes the news writes its own satire.

On the very same day that Bahamians were horrified by reports of a helpless puppy being deliberately trapped inside an abandoned washing machine and left to die, viewers were treated to another display of cruelty—this time on national television.

A pro-PLP television panellist suggested that the people of Long Island should simply be left to “suffer” because they did not vote for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

Think about that for a moment.

One story involved a defenceless animal allegedly abandoned without compassion. The other involved a fellow Bahamian openly suggesting that citizens should endure hardship because they exercised their democratic right to vote differently.

The comparison isn’t about equating people with animals. It’s about asking what kind of mindset allows someone to view suffering as an acceptable consequence of political disagreement.

Whether the comment was aimed at Long Islanders because of their choice of political party, the candidate they supported, or both, is almost beside the point. The truly disturbing part is the apparent absence of empathy.

In a democracy, governments are elected to serve everyone—not just those who voted for them. Roads do not ask who you supported. Hospitals do not check your ballot before treating you. Disaster relief should not depend on the colour of your campaign shirt.

Yet here we are, listening to someone casually suggest that an entire island should be left to suffer because its residents made a different political choice.

The irony is difficult to ignore. The panellist’s own home island has faced significant challenges over the years and has itself needed the attention, resources, and support of successive governments. One would imagine that experience would produce greater compassion, not less.

Perhaps this is just one individual’s opinion. If so, it deserves to remain exactly that—an isolated opinion.

Because if this reflects a broader political culture where public services are viewed as rewards for loyal supporters and hardship is considered an appropriate punishment for dissenters, then we have drifted a very long way from representative democracy.

A mature democracy accepts election results. It does not celebrate the suffering of fellow citizens because of them.

Long Islanders are Bahamians.

Their taxes spend the same.

Their votes count the same.

Their children deserve the same opportunities.

And their government has exactly the same obligation to serve them, whether they voted red, yellow, blue, or stayed home altogether.

Politics should be about improving lives—not deciding whose lives are worth improving.

END