By his utterances and actions, Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Water Resource Management Dr David Estwick is believed to be one of, if not, the toughest and roughest politicians in Parliament.
But in displaying his obvious strength, the minister perhaps unwittingly reveals the weaknesses of the others around him.
This is no more evident than in a letter written to the executive chairman of the Barbados Water Authority, which is short and brutish:
“With immediate effect, I am instructing that no member of the management or staff of the Barbados Water Authority is to attend any Project Review Committee meeting conveyed [convened] by the current Minister of Finance, The Honourable Christopher Sinckler. You are permitted to do so if such meetings are called by The Prime Minister of this country. This directive will remain in force until such time as you are advised otherwise by the Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Water Resource Management.”
Typically, in our parliamentary democracy, the Minister of Finance is the Prime Minister. It is argued in some quarters that the far-reaching responsibilities of the Minister of Finance dictate that for the Prime Minister to have effective control over the Cabinet, and by extension the entire Executive, he must be in charge of the purse strings.
The contents of Estwick’s letter raise several interesting political concerns: (1) given the concept of collective responsibility of Cabinet, his open contempt for the Minister of Finance; (2) in the absence of holding the post of Minister of Finance, what, if any, is the role of the Prime Minister in the financial affairs of the Ministry of Agriculture, or any other ministry, for that matter; and (3) written evidence of the obvious lack of political control of the Prime Minister over “his Cabinet”.
The Constitution of Barbados makes it quite clear that the Minister of Finance must have prepared annual Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. The process requires the head of department in each ministry to prepare revenue and expenditure estimates which are submitted to the Ministry of Finance.
It is untenable for the Minister of Finance to have such power under the Constitution and still to be so regarded by another minister, unless there has been a total breakdown in the ministerial relationship, separate and distinct from any personal relationship.
However, once that breakdown reached the ministerial level, it implicated the chairman of Cabinet, who happens to be the Prime Minister.
The Cabinet is responsible for the general administration of the Government and according to Section 64(2) of the Constitution: “The Cabinet shall be the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the Government of Barbados and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament.”
Notwithstanding that the management of the BWA was permitted to attend meetings called by Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, the contempt for Sinckler is a reflection of the former’s failure to control his Cabinet. It may be argued that part of the problem is reflected in the Cabinet not being Stuart’s but that of late Prime Minister David Thompson.
In the preparation of the annual Estimates, each minister is expected to attend a meeting convened by the Minister of Finance at which he or she justifies the numbers put forward by the respective ministry. In short, at some stage, Estwick would have to face Sinckler, unless he sends his parliamentary secretary to do his job.
The potency of Estwick’s letter suggests that the rumours of rifts in the Cabinet are very much in evidence. Therefore, the widely circulated allegation that Estwick attended the so-called Eager Eleven’s meeting as some kind of mole of Prime Minister Stuart may not have been misguided or far-fetched.
Certainly, the concerns of Stuart not holding any substantive ministry and indeed not holding the Ministry of Finance are very legitimate in the face of the obvious division between the two contending individuals for the prestigious position.
Further, it is worthy of note that notwithstanding being holder of the office of Ministry of Finance, Sinckler has not yet acted as Prime Minister in Stuart’s absence, while others whose ambitions are less clear have done so.
Estwick’s letter provides overwhelming evidence of the rift between himself and Sinckler and even if the former – surprisingly, to some people – were once said to be part of the Eager Eleven, it is highly unlikely that he still is. In fact, in recent times, it was being suggested that the size of that ill-starred, disgruntled group had been reduced to almost half, with some said to be “brekking” for themselves.
It also offers further insight into the anger and frustration that gave birth to Estwick’s outburst last May before the entire nation when he threatened to resign his post to protest the Government’s treatment of the agricultural sector in the allocation of financial and other resources.
Whatever the prevailing political relationships in Cabinet, access at this time just ahead of the general election to Estwick’s written condemnation of the Minister of Finance – who happens to be Sinckler at the moment – is a clear indication that being strong is not always associated with being prudent.
• Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent.
