Bahamas Reflected in Machiavelli’s “Great Man” Theory

There is a book, slim enough to hold in one hand, that has never gone out of print since it was first circulated in Renaissance Florence more than five centuries ago. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513, remains the most unsentimental manual of political power ever committed to paper. It does not concern itself with virtue in the conventional sense. It concerns itself with results — with the cold, calculating art of seizing, holding, and exercising power in a world that does not reward the meek.

Machiavelli’s “Great Man” was not necessarily a good man. He was a necessary man — visionary enough to see what others could not, ruthless enough to do what others would not, and shrewd enough to make his dominance look inevitable in hindsight. He bent fortune to his will through a combination of virtù — that untranslatable Italian word encompassing strength, skill, cunning, and audacity — and an almost clinical reading of the moment he inhabited.

When we survey the long arc of Bahamian history, from the swaggering chaos of the pirate republic to the quiet consolidation of the post-independence era, we find, at every decisive turning point, a man who fits Machiavelli’s template with uncomfortable precision. None of them were saints. All of them were transformative. And understanding them through Machiavelli’s lens may be the most honest way to reckon with what they actually accomplished — and what they cost.

The Florentine Blueprint

Before we turn to Nassau’s storied shores, we must understand what Machiavelli was actually prescribing. Writing for Lorenzo de’ Medici from the bitter vantage of political exile, he observed that fortune was like a river — uncontrollable in flood, but manageable when dikes and channels are prepared in advance. The Great Man, in his formulation, was one who prepared those channels. He identified several qualities essential to such a figure.

He must be simultaneously lion and fox — strong enough to frighten wolves, clever enough to identify traps. He must know when mercy serves power and when it undermines it. He must project constancy while remaining internally adaptable. He must build popular support as his foundation, even while managing elites and fearing neither. He must, above all, be able to act decisively when the moment — what the ancient Greeks called kairos, the right and ready time — presents itself. And critically, Machiavelli understood that the Prince who builds his power on his own arms and arms alone endures. He who depends on others’ goodwill is perpetually vulnerable.

With that architecture in mind, let us walk through Bahamian history as Machiavelli might have read it.

Woodes Rogers: The Man Who Broke the Pirates

“No prey, no pay” became “No pirates, no problem.”

When Woodes Rogers sailed into Nassau Harbour on July 26, 1718, he confronted perhaps the most anarchic situation any colonial governor in British imperial history had ever inherited. New Providence was the beating heart of a pirate republic — a place where Blackbeard caroused, where Charles Vane held contemptuous sway, where the Crown’s writ had been meaningless for the better part of two decades. Any lesser man would have negotiated, temporized, and eventually been consumed.

Rogers was a Machiavellian actor of the first order, and he understood immediately what The Prince instructs: that new powers must strike decisively at the outset, because wounds inflicted at the beginning heal, while wounds permitted to fester destroy. He arrived with the King’s Pardon in one hand and a commission for execution in the other, and he made clear, with memorable efficiency, that he intended to use both. When pirates like Charles Vane refused the pardon and when former pardoned men like John Augur returned to their old trade, Rogers hanged them from the fort. He did not agonize. He did not offer second pardons. He made the point once, made it permanently, and the pirate republic collapsed.

His famous motto — Piracy Expelled, Commerce Restored — was not merely a slogan. It was a Machiavellian mission statement. He understood that the islands’ only future lay in legitimate trade, that lawlessness, however romantic, was ultimately self-consuming. He rebuilt the fort, organized the militia from the very population of former pirates and their associates, and created just enough order to make investment possible. He paid a terrible personal price — bankruptcy, illness, political betrayal back in London — but the colony endured. That is what the Great Man does: he absorbs costs that would destroy ordinary men and leaves institutions behind him.

Rogers was lion enough to hang his enemies and fox enough to pardon hundreds of others, binding them to the new order by making them its defenders.

James Carmichael Smyth: The Reformer with Steel Behind His Smile

The name Carmichael Smyth does not ring with the same drama as Rogers or the later giants of independence, but his tenure as Governor from 1829 to 1833 represents one of the most consequential applications of strategic will in Bahamian colonial history. He arrived during an era of simmering crisis — the abolitionist tide was rising across the Empire, and the Bahamian plantocracy, never as powerful as its Jamaican or Barbadian counterparts, was nevertheless deeply resistant to the dismantling of the slave economy upon which what little remained of its wealth depended.

Carmichael Smyth was a military man — he had served under Wellington — and he brought to governance the soldier’s appreciation for the decisive advance. He read the moral and political winds from London with accuracy and understood that Emancipation was coming regardless of what the local assembly wished. His Machiavellian insight was to position himself ahead of the inevitable, to be the instrument of change rather than its victim. He established the settlement of Carmichael — named, with the immodesty that Machiavelli would have found entirely appropriate, after himself — specifically to house liberated Africans from intercepted slave ships, creating facts on the ground that accelerated the social transformation he had correctly identified as unstoppable.

He was not beloved by the white planter class, which is precisely the point. Machiavelli notes that it is better to be feared than loved when you cannot be both, but he also notes that the truly skilled prince makes the powerful fear him and the many love him. Carmichael Smyth built his base among those who had the most to gain from the new order, and that, in the long accounting of history, proved the wiser investment.

Harold G. Christie: The Fox in the Drawing Room

If Woodes Rogers was the lion of Bahamian history, Harold Christie was its supreme fox — perhaps the most naturally Machiavellian figure the islands ever produced, a man so thoroughly composed of calculation and charm that contemporaries found him irresistible even when they suspected, or knew, that they were being managed.

Christie understood real estate the way Machiavelli understood power: as something that exists not in abstract right but in the willingness to act, to maneuver, to be perpetually present while seeming merely sociable. He came from modest origins and built, through sheer force of personality, relationship, and relentless cultivation of the wealthy and influential, a property empire that quite literally reshaped the physical landscape of the Bahamas. He brought the Duke of Windsor. He cultivated Harry Oakes. He befriended Axel Wenner-Gren at a moment when such a friendship was, to put it diplomatically, complicated. He sold dreams of tropical paradise to American millionaires and British aristocrats with the fluency of a man who had long since ceased to distinguish between the dream and the deal.

Machiavelli warns that the Prince must be careful about flatterers — they surround power like flies around honey, and their counsel is always what you wish to hear. Christie was not the victim of flatterers; he was the flatterer, elevated to an art form. He told every powerful man he met exactly what that man needed to hear to feel comfortable, special, and inclined to do business. And he was never merely sycophantic — beneath the charm was a mind of genuine strategic depth, always positioning, always acquiring, always thinking three transactions ahead.

The murder of Sir Harry Oakes in 1943 — never solved, officially, and perhaps never meant to be — threw Christie into the most dramatic shadow of his life. His alibi was questioned. His relationships with Oakes were complex beyond public accounting. Machiavelli understood that the Great Man sometimes exists in proximity to events whose full nature history may never resolve. What we can say is that Christie survived, as foxes do, and that his influence on Bahamian development — for better and for worse — outlasted the scandal, the war, and the colonial era itself. He was the indispensable man of Bay Street in its golden age, and Bay Street knew it.

Stafford Sands: The Architect of Modern Tourism

Where Christie was the fox, Stafford Sands was the strategist — the man who looked at a collection of small islands with limited natural resources, high transportation costs, and a population emerging from centuries of colonial neglect, and decided, with the clarity of true strategic vision, that sunshine and sea could be monetized on a scale no one had previously imagined.

As Chairman of the Development Board from 1949 and the dominant figure in Bahamian economic policy through the 1950s and into the 1960s, Sands essentially invented modern Bahamian tourism. He flew to New York and London and presented the Bahamas not as a colonial backwater but as an exclusive destination, a carefully curated experience of warmth and sophistication. He brought gambling. He brought direct flights. He brought the infrastructure of an industry that today remains the primary driver of the Bahamian economy.

Machiavelli writes that the Prince must be a builder — not merely of walls and fortifications but of the conditions under which his state can prosper and his name can endure. Sands built an economy. That he did so in the service of a racially exclusionary system — one that explicitly marketed the Bahamas to white American tourists while Black Bahamians were barred from the hotels they built and the casinos they could not enter — is the historical wound that shadows his achievement and cannot be wished away. His was a Machiavellian project in its most morally ambiguous form: genuine vision in the service of a profoundly unjust order. He saw what the Bahamas could become economically and was blind, or indifferent, to what it must become socially. History gave that reckoning to others.

When the Progressive Liberal Party rose to challenge Bay Street’s hegemony, Sands fought hard and lost. He left the Bahamas at independence, never to return as a resident. The fox had run out of terrain to maneuver in. But the infrastructure he built remained, and every tourist who lands at Lynden Pindling International Airport walks into a world that Stafford Sands, for all his considerable failings, substantially created.

Sir Roland Symonette: The Bridge Man

Roland Symonette occupies a peculiar position in the Machiavellian gallery — not the most dramatically decisive figure, but in many ways the most sophisticated institutional one. As the leader of the United Bahamian Party and the Bahamas’ first Premier from 1964 to 1967, he represented the twilight of Bay Street’s dominance, a man skilled enough to adapt his elite constituency to the changing demands of mass democracy even as that democracy was preparing to sweep his party from power.

Machiavelli is deeply interested in the problem of transition — how does a state move from one configuration of power to another without destroying itself? Symonette’s historical role, whether consciously intended or not, was to manage precisely that transition. He was not a reactionary. He was a pragmatist from the old order who understood that the old order could not survive in its pure form and who accepted institutional change — universal adult suffrage, for instance — with enough grace to prevent the kind of violent rupture that has disfigured other post-colonial transitions.

He was a builder in the literal sense — his family’s business empire and his personal wealth were part of the material fabric of Nassau — and he understood that wealth preserves itself best when it adapts rather than resists. He lost power to Pindling in the watershed election of 1967, but he lost it through the ballot box in a contest his party might arguably have won had the arithmetic not turned so decisively. That itself is a measure of something: the institutions held. The Great Man of the old order, in his final act, handed power to the new order without reaching for extra-constitutional measures. Machiavelli would have recognized that as strategic wisdom of a high order — the prince who cannot hold power indefinitely must at least shape the terms of his own succession.

Lynden Pindling: The Lion Who Became the State

Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling is the central figure of modern Bahamian history, and he is the most completely Machiavellian of them all — not because he was unprincipled, for he was not, but because he possessed in extraordinary measure every quality The Prince identifies as essential to the founder of a new order.

Machiavelli reserves his deepest respect for what he calls the “armed prophet” — the man who does not merely articulate a new vision but has the capacity to enforce it, to compel those who do not believe, and to survive the inevitable moment when former allies become enemies. Moses, Romulus, Cyrus — these are his examples. Pindling belongs in that company, and the Bahamian scale of his achievement should not diminish the structural parallel.

But before Pindling could confront Bay Street, he had first to conquer his own house — and that interior conquest is perhaps the most nakedly Machiavellian act of his entire career. The Progressive Liberal Party had not sprung from Pindling’s imagination. It was the creation of Henry Milton Taylor, Cyril Stevenson, and William Cartwright, men of genuine conviction who had dared, in the early 1950s, to build a political vehicle for Black Bahamian aspirations at a time when such daring required real courage. They founded the party. They named it. They gave it its first organisational breath.

But Pindling looked at Taylor, Stevenson, and Cartwright and saw, with the unsentimental clarity that Machiavelli prizes above all other political gifts, that founding a party and leading it to victory are entirely different undertakings. The founders were intellectually serious men. They were not, in Pindling’s cold assessment, warriors. And the enemy they faced — the Bay Street Boys, with their money, their merchant networks, their control of employment and credit and the apparatus of colonial administration, their deep relationships with London — was not an enemy that would yield to reasonableness or moral argument alone. Bay Street would only yield to a man who could move masses, who could walk into a crowd of ordinary Black Bahamians and make them feel, in their bones, that the future belonged to them. Taylor, Stevenson, and Cartwright, for all their founding merit, could not do that. Pindling could.

So he took the party. Not through a coup of the kind that leaves bodies — Machiavelli’s fox does not operate so crudely when guile suffices — but through the patient, methodical accumulation of internal support, the cultivation of younger members who shared his appetite for confrontation, and the gradual displacement of the founders from the commanding heights of the organisation they had built. By the time the founders fully understood what had happened, the transformation was complete. The PLP belonged to Pindling the way a conquered city belongs to its new prince — absolutely, with the old order preserved in honoured memory but stripped of operational authority.

Machiavelli is extraordinarily precise on this point. He writes that injuries must be done all at once, so that, being tasted less, they offend less. Pindling did not humiliate the founders publicly or cast them into disgrace. He absorbed the party around them, elevated his own lieutenants, and redirected the institution’s energy toward the kind of mass mobilisation politics that only he could lead. The founders’ names remained honourable. Their power did not.

This manoeuvre was not merely an internal political skirmish. It was, in retrospect, a prerequisite for everything that followed. A PLP led by its founding temperament — cautious, legalistic, inclined toward petition and reasoned argument — might have achieved gradual reform over many decades. The PLP that Pindling forged was an instrument of rupture. He understood, as Machiavelli understood about all decisive political contests, that the entrenched power of Bay Street would never negotiate away its own dominance. It would have to be defeated — at the ballot box, in the street, in the imagination of a people who had been taught for generations to accept their subordination as natural.

It was that instrument — sharp, disciplined, emotionally galvanising — that he then turned on the real enemy. He came to prominence in a Bahamas where Black Bahamians constituted the overwhelming majority of the population but held almost no political or economic power. The brilliance of his campaign was his understanding that the numbers — democratic majorities — were an army if properly organised. On January 10, 1967, that army showed its strength, and the PLP won enough seats to form a government by the narrowest possible margin, which Sir Alvin Braynen (1904-1992) and Sir Randol Fawkes (1924-2000) famous last-minute decisions made possible. The moment was almost cinematically perfect for a Machiavellian reading: the lion had waited, the fox had identified the weakness, and when the propitious moment arrived, Pindling acted without hesitation.

His conduct of independence negotiations demonstrated the full range of Machiavellian skill. He understood that Britain was not an enemy to be humiliated but a relationship to be managed — that independence achieved cooperatively would be more durable than independence wrested from conflict. He kept the investment climate stable, retained the currency peg, maintained Commonwealth membership, and presented the new Bahamas to the world as a sound and sovereign partner for business. The tourism economy that Sands had built did not collapse; it expanded, now serving all Bahamians rather than a racial subset of them.

Yet the later Pindling is equally instructive, and Machiavelli would not flinch from the account. Power held too long tends to corrupt the judgment even of great men. The drug trade scandals of the 1980s, the commissions of inquiry, the allegations that touched the highest levels of his government — these are the dark chapters that any honest assessment must include. Machiavelli understood that the prince who ignores the corruption of his own court plants the seeds of his eventual fall. Pindling survived politically longer than many expected, but when the fall came, in 1992, it came with the completeness that history reserves for eras that have exhausted themselves.

His legacy is nonetheless fundamental. The Bahamas he created — sovereign, Black-led, internationally recognised, economically functional — is the Bahamas that exists today. No subsequent leader operates outside the architecture he built. And it is worth remembering, always, that the architecture began not with a grand national moment but with a quieter, interior conquest — the moment a young lawyer from Mason’s Addition looked at the party that others had built, decided that he alone could wield it as history required, and reached out and took it.

Machiavelli would have understood that completely. He might even have admired it.

Hubert Ingraham: The Fox Who Followed the Lion

If Pindling was the Lion, Hubert Ingraham was the Fox — and Machiavelli, who argues that the greatest leaders combine both qualities, would have found in Ingraham a fascinating study in how cunning serves where force no longer suffices.

Ingraham’s rise was itself a Machiavellian drama. A product of the PLP, a protégé of the movement that Pindling built, he was expelled from the party in the late 1980s as the drug scandal controversies swirled and as he refused to look away from what he saw. That expulsion, which might have ended a lesser man’s career, became instead his launching platform.

He understood — and this is the fox’s essential intelligence — that the political landscape had shifted, that a population which had loved Pindling now craved accountability, and that the man who offered credible renewal rather than mere opposition would be trusted with power.

In 1987, Ingraham stood as an independent candidate in the general election and was one of only two Members of Parliament expelled from the ruling PLP to have been re-elected as an independent. In April 1990, Ingraham joined the Official Opposition and was subsequently appointed Parliamentary Leader.

He was elected Prime Minister in 1992 as leader of the Free National Movement, ending 25 years of PLP government, and what he did with power demonstrated Machiavellian statecraft at its most disciplined.

Machiavelli observes that the Prince who comes to power after a long and deteriorated rule must be especially careful not to become merely the mirror image of his predecessor’s failings. Ingraham understood this. His political longevity — he served two separate terms as Prime Minister, returning to power in 2007 after the PLP’s Perry Christie interregnum — demonstrated an unusual capacity for political renewal. He was not magnetic in the way that Pindling was magnetic. He did not trade on charisma. He traded on competence, on the reputation for getting things done, on a kind of no-nonsense accountability that voters periodically find more compelling than eloquence.

His relationship with the development sector, particularly the massive resort projects that transformed the economic geography of New Providence and later the Family Islands, reflected the Machiavellian understanding that the Prince must attract investment while ensuring that investment serves the state rather than merely the investor. The record on that balance is, as it always is in small island economies navigating global capital, mixed — but the intention was clear, and the institutional framework he built for foreign direct investment has essentially defined the template every subsequent administration has used.

What the Pattern Tells Us

Taken together, these seven figures describe a recurring pattern in Bahamian history that Machiavelli would have recognized immediately: the Great Man appears when the gap between the existing order and the necessary order becomes too wide to be managed by ordinary administration. He does not merely respond to circumstances; he seizes them, reshapes them, and leaves behind a different landscape than the one he inherited.

None of them were uncomplicated. Christie’s wartime associations and the shadow of Oakes. Sands’ brilliant architecture of exclusion. Pindling’s long twilight and the corruption that gathered around a government too long in power. Even Rogers — who quite literally hanged men from a fort wall — was not a simple hero. Machiavelli did not ask for simple heroes. He asked for effective leaders, and effectiveness is always morally textured.

What is perhaps most instructive about the Bahamian experience is how thoroughly the Great Man theory applies to a small island chain that the wider world has tended to see as merely picturesque. The Bahamas has been a serious arena of power — colonial, economic, racial, political — and it has produced, in each of its decisive chapters, a figure who understood that seriousness and rose to meet it. That is not a small thing. In a world that has long condescended to small island states as passive recipients of larger forces, the Bahamian record of producing men who shaped their own history rather than merely suffering it is a point of considerable national pride.

Machiavelli ends The Prince with an exhortation — a call for a leader to rise and liberate Italy from the foreign powers that had humiliated her. It is the one passage in the book where the cold analyst becomes something approaching a patriot, where calculation gives way to longing. The Bahamas has had its own version of that longing, repeated across centuries and conditions: the longing for order where there was chaos, for dignity where there was subjugation, for prosperity where there was neglect.

The men who answered that longing, in their various and imperfect ways, were Machiavellian to their marrow. And the Bahamas they built, for all its unfinished business, stands as evidence that virtù — that fierce, pragmatic, unsentimental commitment to making things work — can produce something that endures.

---

This essay is part of the “Bahamian Lives, Bahamian Legacies” series, dedicated to the memory of the Rt. Honourable Bradley Roberts, whose lifelong commitment to preserving Bahamian history inspired this work of national remembrance.