The outcome of the recent general election was a surprise to many.
Unfortunately, there are no exit polls to support or not support the various views held on the reasons for defeat or victory of the respective parties. What makes the task of verifying the reasons harder is the lack of a clear divide between the two political parties on values as exists in the United States of America and/or Britain, where there are conservatives and progressives/liberals.
However, over the past two elections, a clear divide between the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) and the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) has emerged with respect to the use of facts and figures and the putting forward of new policies.
In each case, the BLP is more focused and progressive whereas the DLP is more about controlling the language and by extension controlling the message. Surprisingly, the latter is more effective in the political arena.
The closeness of the result may have some grave implications for the next general election because of the nature of the divide that has emerged. In the absence of knowing why people vote, the divide seems to spring from polar opposite roots. This means that the reasons for voting appear to be distinctively different or alternatively the country is more politically polarized than is believed; and not on values.
Some of us are under the illusion in politics that if people understand the facts, we will succeed. Time is proving this to be wrong. The facts alone are not enough. In fact, the facts do not appear to be necessary and certainly are not sufficient.
If there is merit in controlling the language and the message, then the best way to do this is to control the media.
Imagine that there is one television station in a country and then imagine that it is owned and controlled by the state that is the party in power.
Unfortunately, there is a presumption that the state will always be responsible. This is as serious as the presumption that God is a Bajan. Both statements defy logic. The first contradicts the only intent of the party in power which is to win, and may be at all costs. The second suggests that whatever the circumstances, good results from, and prevails over, evil.
In the recent election, the DLP recognized that it could not fight the election on facts and figures. The only figure that favoured the DLP was the “first-term”. Therefore, they had to win the language and they did with tremendous help from the media, which they either owned or controlled.
On the other hand, the BLP recognized that it could not target voters with only anti-DLP messages, so it crafted a comprehensive Manifesto that included a stimulus package which took into consideration the country’ economic realities. The attack from some in the economic community, who did not have access to the details, was mind-boggling.
Whether advertently or inadvertently, the economic community’s attack helped the Government to frame its message and so assisted it in putting language above facts, figures and policies.Given its emphasis on controlling the language, it is not surprising that the Government is changing its language in the aftermath of the election to the annoyance of the same economic community.
Stimulus is a language of hope after the election whereas prior to it, no stimulus was a language of responsibility.
The conflict comes now in matching hope with the irresponsibility suggested in a $600 million stimulus package. In the election campaign, the responsibility was hinged to the concern for the country’s foreign exchange reservesand the “independent” economic voices were singing in harmony. Now, the concern is to offer hope without regard for the reserves.
The average voter is not expected to appreciate the difference between a $90 million and a $600 million stimulus and its implications for the major indicators in the economy. He/she is expected to be able to understand that pre-election, it was irresponsible to use up the foreign reserves but post-election, the stimulus is hopeful in creating jobs.
The voices against the stimulus did the political damage pre-election and therefore the lone voice against a new and bigger stimulus post-election is irrelevant.
There is a serious lesson to be learnt. The party in power has no duty to be responsible in the pursuit of winning an election.
But there is another equally serious lesson: God has no duty to be a Bajan. The latter is and will not be a surprise to many.
• Clyde Mascoll is an economist and Opposition Barbados Labour Party spokesman on the economy. Email [email protected].
