The enormous challenge facing the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) in the next general election is well known and in this political environment, one would think that the Opposition would work expeditiously to have all “its ducks in a row”.
Political parties exist to contest and win elections and any respectable political party should seek to exploit the weaknesses of its opponent, while reflecting minimal weaknesses of its own.
In this regard, the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) seems to be missing an opportunity and while we can debate the extent to which one might want the BLP to be successful in its quest to take office, we can agree that it is practising “bad politics” at this time.
The BLP’s Achilles heel at this time is the issue of leadership, which was “settled” when former Prime Minister Owen Arthur took back the leadership of the party from Mia Mottley, who has since assumed what could be considered a developmental perspective in her politics.
More recently, however, she has expressed an interest in the post of chairman of the BLP, which she has argued would satisfy her political curiosity.
This post carries substantial prestige, but little real power in the scheme of things. The BLP’s chairman could theoretically influence the outcome of candidate selection. However, that process is essentially complete, which means that the chairman would not be particularly troublesome to Arthur now as long as she accepts that she would not be political leader (which she apparently does).
Mottley’s reasons for wanting to become chairman are also interesting to note, since she does not appear to be on a crusade to challenge Arthur necessarily, but is attempting to refashion the BLP, if we are to take her at her words.
She has argued that the BLP’s constitution needs urgent attention and few serious analysts would disagree since the BLP and DLP both have retained their original structures essentially intact over the years.
This structure is particularly problematic as it relates to the selection of the leader, which both parties have consigned to a delegate system.
These systems were popular in socialist parties at the time when the BLP was founded. However, it is noteworthy that the British Labour Party, from which both parties here draw inspiration, has jettisoned the delegate system for a popular election of its leadership.
In the case of our BLP, the popular voting system might not change much regarding leadership, but it would breathe new life into the BLP’s constitution.
There are also important reasons why Arthur should want Mottley to be chairman as well since this would presumably placate Mottley and, hopefully, inspire her to embrace Arthur – both figuratively and literally.
Arthur actually needs Mottley’s forgiveness and her support to win the next election. The process by which she was replaced was politically harsh and left a bitter taste in the mouths of BLP supporters who Arthur will need to win the next election.
These people are looking to Mottley to indicate if and when her wounds are healed and, as such, she can be said to hold a substantial quantity of BLP support that she can easily give or withhold.
These BLP supporters will not necessarily vote against the party, but could easily not vote and this would have a similar effect. It is for this reason that one could argue that Arthur now needs Mottley more than she needs him.
She can help him become Prime Minister again, while the opposite scenario is less compelling since she is not the leader.
One would therefore think that Arthur would be rolling the red carpet for Mottley to become chairman, but he instead appears to be supporting Dr Jerome Walcott, who is well known to be an “Arthur man”.
Walcott’s candidacy, by itself, is viewed as a declaration of war and this takes on greater significance when he is announced as “incoming chairman” before the election is held.
The individual making that announcement was essentially trivializing Mottley’s nomination, which is unwise in a situation where she is a former Opposition leader and still commands broad national support.
In all of this there is no question that Dr Walcott has the right to contest any post in the BLP and, should he win that of chairman, it could help to raise his profile in the public domain.
There is, however, a bigger issue at stake here and it is the image of unity within the BLP which this spectacle is doing little for.
There is then the other matter that is simmering within the BLP – the possible location of Clyde Mascoll as a candidate now that his former seat is being contested by Gregory Nicholls.
This move is an indication that either Mascoll does not believe he can beat Minister Chris Sinckler, that the BLP is not convinced he can, or that Mascoll is no longer interested in politics.
All three of these possibilities are politically intriguing, but it is more intriguing to note that Arthur has openly declared he wants Mascoll on his team.
This raises the question of where he could run since all of the “winnable” seats have already been declared. One wonders if he might attempt to place Mascoll in either St Thomas or St James North, which are held by MPs who are not known to be partial to him.
The combination of these two political hurdles makes one wonder if Arthur and company are serious about mounting a challenge to the DLP in 2013.
• Peter W. Wickham ([email protected]) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
