In the final analysis, both of them will have to leave politics eventually and when they do, their organisations will become easy targets for many years as they seek to locate the next John Compton or Basdeo Panday. Perhaps the mess that has become of the DLP in Barbados ought to be a lesson to all of them regarding the importance of succession planning and institution building. Dr Anthony should “‘sit tight’” since he might be called to battle once more in the not too distant future and it will be so much easier next time around. – People & Things, January 14, 2007.
It is important I begin with an expression of congratulations to Dr Kenny Anthony for his success in last Monday’s election.
Anthony is one of the Caribbean leaders who can be said to be close to us here in Barbados both physically and emotionally and one whose intellect benefits the region, way beyond the shores of St Lucia.
We are therefore happy to welcome him back especially at this time when the challenges that face the region require someone with his skill and political tenacity.
The election that brought him back to the helm was both historic and special in many ways that will require a separate reflection. However, I will pay particular attention to the lessons Barbados can learn from this election.
The initial quotation taken from a 2007 reflection on the St Lucia election was perhaps more prophetic than I would have intended since within one year of that election, a painful chapter in the life of the United Workers Party (UWP) began.
Regrettably, this election has answered the question of the UWP’s ability to win an election without Compton decisively and one can only hope that former prime minister Stephenson King will have the foresight to vacate the post of party leader post-haste and give this organisation an opportunity to retain new leadership that the public of St Lucia might find more attractive.
The prophetic nature of the article also spoke to the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) mess which the 2008 election presumably “fixed”. However, within two years, this party was once more forced to deal with the issue of succession planning in a way that was both cruel and unexpected.
In this instance, the party selected Freundel Stuart, in much the same way that the UWP selected Stephenson King. These gentlemen have continued to share much in common that should be of concern to the supporters of the DLP who are relying on a second term in 2013.
In both instances, it can be argued that these gentlemen appeared to be “unnatural” leaders of their institutions since neither appeared to match the charisma or political style of their predecessors, or indeed appears to project the type of personality that we have grown accustomed to with our leaders.
We can debate the extent to which either of the two individuals possesses a “fighting” political personality.
However, I would instead refer readers to CADRES poll data that suggests that neither individual is the person considered by their respective populations to be the most preferred to lead.
In the case of Barbados, CADRES published a poll in September 2010 which suggested that Stuart was not favoured by the population, while an unpublished CADRES poll conducted in St Lucia around the same time confirmed suspicions that King was not the person most preferred to lead there either.
Certainly, the choice of a replacement at the time of a leader’s passing is entirely within the domain of the members of parliament. However, it is equally clear that an unpopular decision could have negative consequences when that party seeks a fresh mandate.
In the case of King, he appeared to be a path of “least resistance” and Stuart also appears more agreeable than his apparent alternative who often seems more “contentious”. The reality of politics is, however, that few successful leaders possess the personalities of King and Stuart since success depends on capturing and retaining office and this task of necessity requires some amount of political aggression.
Another most important comparison is slim victory in the preceding election in both instances. In both cases, there is (was) a prevailing belief that the two governments were strong since there was a comfortable surplus of seats. This is a well-known peculiarity of our electoral system which lulls a party into complacency. However, the reality is that neither the Stephenson King nor the Freundel Stuart administration is “electorally strong”.
In the case of King, his party was separated from Anthony’s by a slender three per cent which means that he was vulnerable to a 1.5 per cent swing, while here in Barbados, Stuart’s DLP is separated from Owen Arthur’s Barbados Labour Party by six per cent, which means that Stuart is vulnerable to a three per cent swing.
In both instances, electoral swings have traditionally been well above these margins which means that both individuals are (were) essentially “walking uphill” in a global political environment that is not helping.
Presumably, both leaders would have been comforted by the fact that in St Lucia and Barbados, governments are normally given two terms. However, I am inclined to believe that a confluence of persuasive factors in both countries makes this assumption irrelevant, meaning that the next election will turn on the basis of a political battle and not a political assumption.
In the 1992 presidential election campaign in the United States, political strategist James Carville coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid” to sum up the reasons why an unbeatable President George Bush could be beaten. In this instance, I humbly offer a similar “distinction” for consideration as a major factor in determining the fates of governments in St Lucia and Barbados.
As was the case with the 2007 comment cited above, politicians here and there can take this as either a prediction of gloom or a word to the wise.
