As we mourned the passing of our leader over the past ten days, most of us approached national political discourse with the requisite civility. however, it is now time to turn this page and the first order of business should be a candid examination of our new Prime Minister, as he is a man about whom little is known.
It is perhaps best that this examination be done by way of comparison with his predecessor who would be our most recent incarnation of that lofty office.
There is no question that Prime Minister David Thompson was considerably more popular than Prime Minister Stuart and this is so for reasons other than the obvious personality differences.
Prime Minister Thompson had the opportunity to grow on Barbadians over his almost 25 years in public life.
Thompson was known to us while he was a student and through his activism in the Young Democrats. He was elected to Parliament after a single year at the Bar and we all witnessed his marriage, the birth of all three of his children and the adoption of a fourth.
At the political level we also shared his successes and failures, as he took the leadership of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) at 32 with much promise only to lead that party into its worst ever political defeat five years later in 1999. Throughout this time Thompson gained both friends and enemies, but regardless, his name was synonymous with DLP politics and no one could reasonably say “Who is David Thompson?”
Accomplished professional
Prime Minister Stuart’s entry into our lives was considerably different, especially as he entered active politics as a full adult and accomplished professional. We never witnessed PM Stuart’s wedding or the birth of his daughter. His professional disposition was entirely legal and those among us who have had the good fortune to watch him in the courts of law would easily be convinced of his comfort and command in that environment.
It was therefore no surprise that he was identified as the Attorney General in the new DLP administration. In political discourse, attorneys general are associated more with their sharp legal minds and less with their political prowess, which is a characterisation that is not helped by the ministry itself which is quite “dry”.
If the Attorney General is responsible for the passage of landmark legislation like the Family Law Act, it is normally associated more with the party than the person and it would take an incident like the destruction of a prison for an Attorney General to have the opportunity to demonstrate his/her leadership ability.
In contradistinction, Prime Minister Thompson was the Minister of Youth Affairs who introduced the Barbados Youth Service, and thereafter the Minister of Finance who introduced VAT and conceived the Social Partnership.
It can therefore be said that the political cards are stacked against Prime Minister Stuart who also appears to have a personality type that thus far seems less than “warm”. Stuart is not likely to be found “hanging with the boys” on a Friday night in Oistins; however this should really not be held against him since there is no cardinal rule in politics that says a successful prime minister needs to do these things.
Certainly, the comparison between the two most recent DLP leaders is somewhat like the comparison of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, since the former was certainly no less intelligent or competent than the latter, but just appeared to be more “boring”. This frank comparison is not as unkind as it might appear at first blush since most professionals appreciate that there are limitations to excitement in politics, as good policy need not be exciting for it to be effective.
Reliance on spin
Moreover, a sober reflection on the Blair/Thompson type approach to politics can lead the analyst to conclude that there is often too heavy a reliance on “spin” and one often is challenged to find the truth in simple and precise terms.
Barbadians are essentially conservative people. Our collective personality is such that the Stuart “type” of leader could easily become as popular as the Thompson “type”. However, we will need time to adjust to this new approach to leadership and this adjustment will not happen if he is constantly compared to Thompson (as I have admittedly done).
Stuart, like then [Harold] St John and [Erskine] Sandiford, has inherited all of his predecessor’s assets as well as his liabilities.
Political tuxedo
This DLP administration was conceived, designed and executed by Prime Minister Thompson within the context of a project that took him the better part of 25 years to complete. This “political tuxedo” does not exactly fit Stuart well but it would be unwise for him to cast it aside. He must instead seek alterations and do so in a manner that is discreet and effective.
As far as focus is concerned, there is little question that his needs to be largely economic, since he needs to impose even greater sanity on government’s finances while seeking to bring relief to taxpayers. One of course wonders if he will leave this task to Sinckler or if he will assume the economic mantle himself, either in whole or part. The specifics of his approach would most likely be revealed in days and one assumes that his moves will be carefully measured, effective and designed to ensure that the DLP is not consigned to another 15 years in the political wilderness.
Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
