This week the ongoing saga that has distracted the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) has taken a most unfortunate turn.
In dealing with this issue, it is important I first speak to the perception that this Owen Arthur-Mia Mottley melee is strictly the BLP’s business and of no concern to those among us who do not hold BLP membership. Â
This is, of course, patent nonsense since disquiet on either the Government or Opposition benches is of concern to all of us, and of particular concern to me since I commented comprehensively on the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) travails during former Prime Minister David Thompson’s long walk to Ilaro Court.
In this instance it is important we not only better understand the personalities who are offering themselves to us as candidates, but we also need to appreciate the extent to which these issues fundamentally revolve around democracy and speak volumes about the extent to which our primary democratic institutions are easily subject to manipulation.
In this most recent instalment, former Opposition Leader Mottley has withdrawn from the race for party chairman, apparently out of frustration that was born of an initial propaganda campaign that was followed by a skilful manipulation of the nomination process to make it appear as though she was a “non-starter”.
I agree that under the circumstances she needed to withdraw from this process, not necessarily because she would lose, but because the incident speaks to the determination of her combatants and the depth to which these people would sink in their quest to have “their man” elected. It would therefore be unwise to remain and legitimize a process that was so clearly being manipulated.
Apart from the political machinations, the fundamental constitutional issues are important to note and it is ironic that Mottley’s attempt to become BLP chairman was intended to address this irregularity where the BLP (like the DLP) pretends to be a popular party, while its leader/chairman is selected via a process that is anything but popular.
In both instances there is a complex delegate system that determines who can be nominated, the number of times and essentially restricts participation in the election that follows.
This nomination process, unlike the election, is public and can therefore be easily manipulated by those with power and influence.
This process was originally adopted by both parties at their inception largely because it was popular at that time in socialist parties for reasons that are not relevant here.
It is, however, important to note that contemporary times have given way to a practice that encourages all party members to popularly elect their leader/chairman.
This is currently done within the United National Congress and Congress of the People (of Trinidad and Tobago) and the British Labour Party, which is the BLP’s parent.
It is interesting that the DLP recently rejected an initiative of Minister Chris Sinckler to go the popular route and instead routinely suspends its standing orders to allow everyone who attends the conference to participate, which achieves a similar objective. Â
One of the arguments that supports this approach suggests that a popularly elected leader is stronger since he/she is endorsed by the entire mass-based membership of the party. This also goes to the root of our democracies in which everyone has the right to participate in the selection of their Government.
The converse is also true and a modern party’s unwillingness to adopt this approach implies a fear of the democratic process and the mass base of the party. Hence we ought to ask the BLP’s leadership why it fears the will of the people.
The other side of this issue is one of political strategy that arises from the obvious preference for Dr Jerome Walcott in the post of chairman. In this regard I was recently reminded of an article I penned on December 29, 2006, entitled Arthur’s Change Of Mind.
I suggested that Walcott would likely emerge as the new deputy within a post-2008 BLP regime since he was “perceived as intelligent, competent, honest and non-threatening”.
I stand by this assertion and suggest that Walcott is perceived no differently five years later.
Instead one can argue that Arthur is now more concerned with the “non-threatening” aspects of Walcott’s political personality, since Mottley represents a threat that he believes would undermine his bid for office in 2013.
In making such a determination, however, Arthur is ignoring a political reality that has made Mottley considerably more powerful than he is prepared to accept.
This power emanates from her national popularity which was assessed by CADRES in September 2010 at 18 per cent, which is statistically equal to that of Arthur’s, which stood at 22 per cent in a poll with a +/- 5 per cent margin of error.
The appended chart isolates the BLP supporters interviewed by CADRES in September 2010 and demonstrates the extent to which both individuals share BLP support.
Certainly, things have changed since then but it is politically ludicrous to ignore an individual who clearly commands support of the size as shown by the BLP’s political pie in preference for Dr Walcott, whose name was not mentioned as a potential leader in 2010.
I have frequently drawn reference to the factors that impact on an election. Party unity is one of the more significant and this is the basis of Mottley’s strength. It is only she who can send a signal to the public that unity exists within the BLP, and presumably she will do this when she is politically appeased.
This recent move by Arthur will only promote greater displeasure.
He appears to be investing political resources at this time in Clyde Mascoll and Dr Walcott and while both of these gentlemen are “perceived as intelligent, competent, honest and non-threatening”, neither can lay claim to either a national or BLP support base that approaches Mottley’s.
The belief that Arthur has difficulties with women has been promoted recently by the National Organization of Women. However, I believe this thinking is way off-base since Arthur has clearly done more to promote women than any leader of Barbados before or since. Â
The basic problem with Mottley, as I see it, is that she appears to want something that Arthur wants and seems to have the power to stop him from getting it. One can only hope that BLP supporters also appreciate the devastating impact that this clash of political desires is having on their immediate political fortunes.
