Are FNMs held to a higher standard than PLPs?
As Election 2026 approaches, a question is surfacing again: Are members of the Free National Movement judged more harshly in controversy than their Progressive Liberal Party counterparts?
Among some voters, the perception is clear. When allegations or associations emerge, FNM figures often face swift calls for resignation or withdrawal. PLP leaders, critics argue, are more likely to defend, dismiss or outlast controversy.
The difference lies not just in the issue but in the response.
In 2023, when Immigration Minister Keith Bell faced criticism over decisions that some said bypassed senior immigration officials, the FNM called for his resignation. At the time, PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell publicly said he advised Bell not to respond to the controversy, suggesting it would not be beneficial.
The incident showed the PLP’s instinct to contain and stand firm rather than concede ground.
The pattern is being debated again.
After the arrest of Malcolm Goodman in the United States on drug charges, some PLP voices called on the FNM to reconsider Marvin Dames’ nomination, despite Dames not being accused of wrongdoing.
Dames acknowledged a past business arrangement with Goodman but denied any knowledge of alleged criminal activity.
At the same time, Sebas Bastian’s name appeared in recently released Jeffrey Epstein-related documents referencing trafficking allegations — allegations he has denied.
There has been no internal campaign within PLP ranks demanding political distance.
Prime Minister Philip Davis publicly stood by Bastian, insisting the claims would not affect the party’s election campaign.
Davis has also publicly stood by businessman Adrian Fox, who previously faced U.S. legal trouble connected to human smuggling allegations before entering a plea to a lesser vessel-related charge.
Davis told reporters Fox was both a client and a friend. He wrote to a U.S. judge urging a lenient sentence and later said that if given the opportunity, he would do it again.
To critics, this posture signals boldness, even defiance, in the face of controversy. To supporters, it reflects loyalty and a belief in second chances.
The broader question remains: Is accountability applied consistently, or through partisan lenses?
