The result of the St Lucia general election is having a far more direct impact upon Barbadian politics than is justified by objective comparative analysis. Specifically, some commentators have been drawing parallels between the situation of Stephenson King in St Lucia and Freundel Stuart in Barbados and have been reading a similarly negative electoral future for Stuart.
The similarities pointed to by his naysayers include the fact that Stuart, like King, inherited the office following the death of the duly elected Prime Minister, without the legitimacy of a popular mandate. They point to the relatively small margins in terms of national support separating the DLP from the BLP in the last election, as well as the issue of the charisma deficiency of King and Stuart, as other similarities.
Significantly, the St Lucia fallout now appears to be influencing internal DLP politics. Thus, fresh from his return from a regional meeting, Stuart was greeted with Press questions concerning “rumours about dissatisfaction in the Cabinet”.
Despite the compelling nature of the surface similarities, it is misleading to see direct parallels between the Stuart and King situations. What seems to be at play is the fact that the long-standing anti-Stuart group in the DLP has been emboldened, rather than validated, by the St Lucia result, and given the one-year window for the Barbados election, they have upped the ante. It is therefore political opportunity, rather than objective fact, which has shaped the current challenges to Stuart.
Their actions might have also induced a degree of panic on the part of the less-politically-motivated players, forcing them to follow the anti-Stuart line.
Whilst the broad structural issues which impacted the St Lucian election may repeat themselves in Barbados, it is important not to overstate the similarities between King and Stuart. First, Stuart possesses intellectual depth and has himself contested the leadership of his own party in an earlier period. On these two counts alone, Stuart’s claims to leadership acumen and status place him miles ahead of King. In addition, King was saddled with a gang of ministers who would have tested any leader. The political misbehaviour of his team goes a long way towards explaining his defeat. Stuart has inherited men of more substance. Stuart’s ideological depth as a champion of social democracy also sets him apart from King.
Any move against Stuart should therefore be explained on other grounds. Is his social democracy offending the neoliberals?
While St Lucia may provide the spur to prick the sides of the anti-Stuart group, it should be remembered that both King and Stuart, despite their limitations, emerged as the obvious and most likely leaders following the deaths of Compton and Thompson. The challengers to Stuart will have to prove that the instinctive decision of the duly elected members was wrong.
Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus specializing in regional affairs. Email tjoe2008@live.com