Now that the people of Barbados have determined, even by the slightest possible margin, into whose hands the direction of the country will fall for the next five years, questions arise about a matter that involves some name-calling.
And soul-searching.
I refer to the matter of succession for the returned Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government and indeed the future of this esteemed political institution.
One consideration, as against task or job, is the naming of a deputy. This office is not provided for under the Constitution and some Prime Ministers have been able to dance around the matter by calling on different persons to act when they are overseas.
The most recent example of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart bears out the point. At least three of his ministers have acted during his absence from the island, affording him the chance of not making a decided selection of a deputy. And thus keeping every MP honest and the rest of Barbados guessing.
Stuart’s predecessor, the late David Thompson, also danced around the issue in the first year of office by not officially naming him, but allowing him to act in his absence and then eventually naming Stuart who would succeed him as head of government on Thompson’s untimely passing.
As in the case of Thompson, we have seen two other Prime Ministers dying in office, requiring a replacement Prime Minister to be chosen, in the case of both Tom Adams and Errol Barrow, in very short order.
Given the high mortality rate of our chief servants in office, it is wise to set out clearly the preferred choice of the holder of office, even though this is not a matter that can be directed from the grave.
Stuart has a wide selection of wanna-bees before him to become Deputy Prime Minister.
I would suggest Chris Sinckler, whom consistently polls showed was the best person to succeed in the leadership of the DLP. But that fact may well disqualify him from being deputy while placing him in a position to run ultimately for the post of party leader.
Then there is Ronald Jones who has acted as Prime Minister more times than any other minister, but who apparently fell from grace some time after the well documented Eager Eleven letter was drafted for submission to Stuart, complaining that his leadership style was creating complications for the party.
Add to the list Richard Sealy, who was seen as the person best favoured by Stuart and with whom the Prime Minister seems to enjoy greatest personal confidence.
Then there are two experienced MPs for consideration: Denis Kellman and Dr David Estwick.
Both of these have been overlooked in the past, but must stake their claims.
Certainly, Kellman, regarded by many as a bit of a political maverick, is the most experienced DLP parliamentarian, having won five successive elections. When David Thompson won the Government in 2008, Kellman was not included in his original Cabinet. In fact, Kellman, who was instead named Caricom Ambassador, was only drafted into the Cabinet when Stuart succeeded Thompson in 2010.
Kellman’s loyalty to both Stuart and the DLP is beyond question, but he is regarded as perhaps a little too unorthodox in his approach to politics to be placed a heartbeat away from the top post.
Dr Estwick has done yeoman service for the DLP and has been regarded as one of the harder working ministers. He has served in three senior ministries – Health, Economic Affairs and Agriculture – and is regarded as the party’s lead spokesman on economic affairs, but has spent more time in the Ministry of Agriculture than any other Cabinet post.
Public opinion polls conducted by CADRES in January and February show Sinckler as the preferred person in the DLP.
In January, Sinckler placed fourth as preferred leader by all Barbados, at 14 per cent. All other contenders, including Kellman, Sealy, Jones and Estwick, got only single digit support between one per cent and two per cent.
Among uncertain voters, Sinckler got 20 per cent and again all others were in single digits, including Donville Inniss whose name is unlikely to be on the DLP charts in the forseeable future.
When asked who would be their alternative leader, those polled chose Chris Sinckler with a 58 per cent pass to Estwick’s 11 per cent, Kellman’s nine per cent, Inniss’ at eight per cent and Jones and Sealy at seven per cent.
In the February 18 poll, Sinckler got 11 per cent among all Barbados and all others got one per cent or less. Among uncertain voters he topped that list by getting 16 per cent, with Inniss at four per cent and all others between one and three per cent.
The numbers speak for themselves.
But Stuart may well chose to appoint no one as his deputy. He does not have to. There is no constitutional provision for such an appointment. It has been Stuart’s policy to name one individual or the other to act on occasions when he has had to be off island.
If he goes that route in this, his second stint as Prime Minister, many, including his hopeful colleagues, would naturally be disappointed. But Stuart, who as a trained attorney at law is comfortable with legal provisions, would be quick to point out that deputies are only essential in the eyes of late Trinidad calypsonian Penguin, since they are appointed only as a matter of convention, not law.
But, unfortunately, in circumstances where, God forbid, he should die suddenly in office as other predecessors have, he would leave an unholy mess for his party to clean up.
And it would send a signal that he failed to provide essential succession planning. This would in no way enhance his legacy.
In addition to the task of naming a deputy which he can circumvent, Stuart must, as the newly elected Prime Minister, name the country’s next Attorney General. The Constitution provides that this position be immediately filled. It is the only ministerial portfolio to which the Constitution specifically refers.
Section 72 (1):
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, may, by directions in writing, assign to the Prime Minister or any other minister responsible for any business of the Government, including the administration of any department of the Government:
“Provided that one such other minister (who shall be styled Attorney General) shall be assigned the functions of principal legal adviser to the Government . . . .”
Now that Stuart has the comfort and security of his own mandate to lead the country, and five years in which to set about his agenda, he enjoys a level of confidence to selectively pick both his Attorney General and Deputy Prime Minister.
His choice of Attorney General will probably fall to former Minister of Housing and Lands Michael Lashley who spent all five years of the last term in that ministry. He will expect to be rewarded with a more senior pick based on the large volume of work he undertook and the extent to which the success of the DLP’s housing programme became the main plank of the party’s election boasts and electoral success.
Stuart may also have the option of going outside his group of elected parliamentarians and endorsing his confidant, senior attorney-at-law Hal Gollop, whose name had been called at the time when a replacement was sought at the juncture when he (Stuart) moved from the nation’s chambers into Government Headquarters.
There is precedent for it. Two previous attorneys general have been chosen outside of the group of elected persons. Indeed, our first Attorney General after Independence was Frederick Smith (later Sir Frederick), who was specifically brought back to Barbados within two days of the 1966 general election to become Government’s chief legal adviser. George Moe was the second such person chosen by then Prime Minister Errol Barrow.
The selection of Gollop would possibly offend both Lashley and Adriel Brathwaite who last held the post and who, barely re-elected in yesterday’s poll, remains eligible and now, experienced.
But who knows? Stuart is likely to revert to his old ways of playing everything close to his chest until he is good and ready.
And we all know we just have to wait!
• Harold Hoyte is Editor Emeritus of THE?NATION.
