Yesterday was one of the days I wished I had the gift of foresight.
I would have known, in this time of extremely heightened political intrigue, whether the nomination meeting of the Barbados Labour Party’s (BLP) St James North branch would have been “cat piss and pepper”, according to the old Bajan vernacular, or whether the incumbent Rawle Eastmond was able to get the issue miraculously solved in time for things to go smoothly at St Silas Primary last night.
But speaking without the benefit of foresight, I wonder whether the country’s oldest political party really believes it stands to benefit by sticking stubbornly to “the rules” or by losing Eastmond and probably former leader Mia Mottley just to prove a point.
Judging solely by the angry reaction of people in the constituency of St James North, whose seat Eastmond has won at a canter for the BLP in the last five elections, his impressive record would have been deserving of more than mere adherence to rules which, incidentally, are only now being so rigidly enforced.
It stood to reason for umpteen years that if an incumbent remained interested in any seat, no nomination on either side of the political fence was really necessary; and for a stalwart admired by nearly all and sundry in the St James North area which stretches far past the St James boundary into Road View, St Peter – mere yards away from Speightstown which is the constituent heart of the Opposition Leader himself – this enforcement of the nomination rule seems almost disrespectful.
One can understand the BLP’s preparation for a possible alternative candidate in light of Eastmond’s health issues, since there was even talk of a by-election as far back as mid-2008; and above all, he himself introduced attorney-at-law Edmund Hinckson as his likely replacement in the constituency.
The BLP, therefore, had little choice but to put alternatives in place.
But at the same time, Eastmond expressed concern with what he termed voter “padding” in the nomination process – which was not addressed – and before then had thrown his support behind Mottley when Leader Owen Arthur took over the helm of the party in October, 2010.
These issues probably accelerated the party’s intention to put the eloquent politician, teacher, lawyer and writer out to pasture.
If, therefore, this enforcement of a nomination for a man with five electoral wins under his belt is a way of punishing him for supporting Mottley and questioning the integrity of the nomination process, then the wound inflicted within the BLP in October 2010 could well rupture in this election year.
And it is not far-fetched to now envisage one or two BLP stalwarts, including the former Deputy Prime Minister Mottley, now described by Arthur as “a member of ordinary standing”, threatening to cross the floor.
And if this is the way to deal with party faithfuls – and I recall Clyde Mascoll suffering a similarly harsh fate – is Cynthia Forde, who has also supported Mottley, safe? Who really is safe in the Opposition at this time? And if someone crosses the floor, will someone’s head finally “roll” on the Government side?
It need not be so since common sense and one-on-one discussion could have solved what has developed into the possibility of ruined political careers and more conflict within a great political party of over 70 years’ standing. But in the silly season, out goes all reason, it seems.
A betting man might advise Prime Minister Freundel Stuart to strike now with the Opposition in disarray, but chances are this will play out for a few weeks and, unless something drastic occurs – like a crossing of the floor – many will forget and will again be bombarded and confounded by economic jargon right up to election time.
Hands tied
Another saddening issue is brewing, and at its centre is a Cuban whom no country wants: Raul T. Garcia, who is on a hunger strike at Her Majesty’s Prison Dodds, in a last-ditch effort to get his freedom after serving a 15-year drug trafficking sentence.
Cuba will not allow him re-entry after being away for over a decade; uniting with his Miami family is well nigh impossible since the United States will want nothing to do with a convicted dealer; and the Barbados Government is stuck with him and simply cannot allow him to roam freely and be embraced by the local drug-running community.
The argument for him as a human being deserving free existence is a strong one, but at the same time it is extremely difficult and dangerous for this Government to grant freedom to a drug “lord” with contacts in Barbadian society, in the prison population and beyond these shores.
Such a precedent could haunt this country for years.
Furthermore, would a government want on its record the fact that it allowed a Cuban drug dealer to become a free citizen in Barbados, after having herded back home a string of Ugandans, Guyanese and others who had committed lesser crimes or no crime at all?
As much as one’s heart bleeds for Garcia, freedom in Barbados cannot be an option. Perhaps some form of refugee status could be granted, but at whose expense?
The United Nations’?
