Succession plan for politicians?

EACH OF US, I believe, has at some point to confront our own mortality, and perhapsno one has done so with greater trepidation than I have in the past year or so.My own battle with illness has, to a certain extent, enabled me to empathise with Prime Minister David Thompson who has publicly revealed his own struggle with a so far undiagnosed medical condition.These musings are not morbid thoughts, but a healthy dose of reality in a fleeting moment of contemplation of the human condition amidst the rush associated with living from day to day.Speculation abounded in the few weeks prior to the Prime Minister’s announcement about the state of his health.And people began to ask what if . . . and the subject of succession planning came into focus.In the rarefied world of management, one of the most often heard expressions is the “succession plan”. In the public sector, thereis a long held tradition of seniority which only in recent times has been challenged by the phenomenon of “supersession”, while in the private sector, the spectacle of businesses closing their doors (mostly family-owned) in the absence of a succession plan has led to a paradigm shift in the approach to continuity.Catapulting someI have heard reports, however, that in the corporate world “succession plans”have been used to perpetrate some of the most unimaginable “wickednesses” that involve virtually destroying the careers of people approaching – but still some distance away from – retirement, while at the same time catapulting some of the barely competent who are still on a learning curve.But the political worldis an entirely different place.The question must be asked: does thoroughly modern political organisations suchas our political parties have succession plans?Is there any mechanismin the respective parties, for example, that would permit the automatic assumption of office by the chosen deputies?Some Barbadians, on either side of the political divide, still appear not to be over the sudden death in office of two previous Prime Ministers, and the unseemly squabble that attended at least one succession even though both had established deputies, and one had even publicly laid out his own succession plan:“After me is . . .”.Apart from the distress such moments cause family, friends and associates, they also tend to bring out the worst in some political operatives – andtheir patrons.For example, there have been reports of rumblings within the DLP over whether the current deputy should be the successor, or whether he should have been the deputyin the first place.In such circumstances, it almost goes without saying that there is need fora succession plan in the two political parties which areboth capable of winning enough seats in Parliament to effectively govern this country. For unlike, earlier political periods, the cupboard is not as full with talent in general and so it reflects on the possible leadership talent.This can raise an unhealthy potential for confusion at a time when the countryis confronted withseveral challenges.  In our system, it is accepted that significant emphasis is placed on the leadership of the party in determining its chances at the polls, its ability to attract financing; and its capacity to lead once elected.Not much emphasisis placed on the“what if?” scenarios.I believe it is time thatmore thought be given to a succession plan in the political arena, where the country’s health is at stake.Should anything happen to a leader in office, there are broad and far-reaching implications that must be considered paramount.OpportunityIn the twinkling of an eye, the political environment could change, such that the country’s future could be compromisedas comradeship is clouded by new-found opportunity; maturity collides with greed; and stability is replacedby fragility.      Therefore, in the absence of a legislated plan, it is expected that several individuals may view themselvesas worthy successors. It is the nature of politics.It is also the nature of politics for ordinary men to feel worthy in times of opportunity. Such is the nature of politics that the number two is not necessarily seen as the number one, in a “what if” scenario.It is the nature of our politics too, that the number one position is earned while the number two is a gift of the number one. There are key factors which have to be considered. Of these, a critical element in winning a general election, given the recent history, is the ability of the leader of a political party to attract financing. This may lead to the consideration of an individual who may not satisfy the criteria outlined above, butwho may have the benefit of a socialisation that puts him in the financial pool.It is the nature of politics.It is evident that even in a succession plan there are several issues to consider. Perhaps, what is trulyneeded is a clear outline of the qualities required for leadership.This requirement would go contrary to the natural grain of politics and should never be legislated; it would at least, however, establish some parameters within which to assess our leaders. The assessment is now done for the de facto leaders, with reference to somevery subjective criteria.    The major difference between the Government and an Opposition is the absence of power in the Opposition party.Internal supportThe successor inaruling party is able to secure internal supportby making the appropriate appointments, given the range of positionsto be filled and the threat of removal. This leads to a fascinating scenario in which the worthy successor on the Government’s side, may be neither number one nor number two, but satisfies all of the criteria and in the circumstances may be seen by many as the preferred person to lead the country.While politics has its own nature, it is about grabbing opportunity, since politicshas no certainty.No one can predict what the future holds and all analysis is really in the realm of “what if?”.Therefore every plan, even a succession plan, should take into consideration the likely, and the unlikely.