Following the passage of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government’s Budget, people have asked what, if anything, can be done to force this Government to return to the polls. This issue deserves professional reflection since this Government is Barbados’ weakest ever both in terms of seats and votes and, thus far, evidence suggests that it has broken key promises.
This situation is not peculiar since in 1991 Prime Minister Lloyd Erskine Sandiford steadfastly defended his legitimacy under similar circumstances. But now the DLP is weaker and should be more vulnerable. However, a few features strengthen the Freundel Stuart administration, the most important being the superior strength of Stuart. Sandiford faced challenges from Haynes and others who left the DLP. Sandiford won the 1991 election, but this was no major surprise since he inherited the strongest DLP Government ever.
Stuart faced similar challenges. However, he batted on the worst DLP “wicket” ever. Plus, his detractors remained within the DLP, with his leadership being a central issue in an election that he won.
He therefore effectively stifled any possibility of opposition to him, while Sandiford continued to fight until his Government collapsed.
The other major factor strengthening Stuart is the “wisdom” of avoiding the Ministry of Finance, which is now a place that no wise politician should be. Sinckler is now the face of austerity, as Sandiford was, and although Sinckler believes himself to be considerably more charismatic, the harshness of these measures along with his perceived arrogance will likely tarnish him for many years to come. Although Stuart has thrown his full weight behind Sinckler on this occasion, in the past he has been known to throw Sinckler and others under the proverbial “bus” with equal ease and it might yet become appropriate for him to act similarly to preserve himself.
Although Sandiford had a larger majority, now, as in 1991, no parliamentary challenge can be made to the DLP since our system requires only a majority of one to take all the power. The DLP faced the charge in 1991, as it does now, that it misled the population, but there was not then, nor is there now, any constitutional mechanism to force the Government back to the polls. The accusation of telling untruths contributed significantly to the collapse of the Sandiford administration.
This situation has little regional precedent, save for the collapse of the administration of Prime Minister James Mitchell (1998-2001) – one of few instances a Caribbean government was “forced” back to the polls without a successful vote of no confidence, but the circumstances were different. Mitchell won a majority of seats, but his loss of the popular vote handicapped him in the court of public opinion. Stuart has no such handicap and it will therefore be difficult for Mottley to argue that he has no moral “right” to lead. Â
Summarily, in the Vincentian case, Ralph Gonsalves, United Labour Party leader, acted in concert with other social partners to make St Vincent ungovernable and force Mitchell to commit to early elections.
Interestingly, Sandiford’s Government was of equal vintage but Sandiford was “forced” to act by way of a vote of no confidence. Suffice to say, unless the Stuart administration loses a vote of no confidence, Mottley would also have to rely on the type of moral compulsion that Gonsalves relied upon, and it is questionable how “compelled” Stuart would consider himself to call an early election, especially since he was not anxious to call one when it was due six months ago.
The focus must therefore be on the single parliamentary option that Mottley has – a vote of no-confidence. In order for this to succeed one of 16 DLP MPs would need to vote with the Opposition – or two MPs could perhaps suddenly develop haemorrhoids that require urgent treatment in Antigua. The one defector would presumably be a DLP backbencher. One of them represents a community that is slow to become discontented with the DLP, while the other MP risks losing a job, a seat and would carry this burden for 15 other MPs at a time when few of them are pensionable.
Ironically, this issue of parliamentary pension stands in the way of a successful BLP no confidence motion. Sadly, our system’s only parliamentary device to control the executive is thwarted by a variety of self-interest that DLP MPs are unlikely to abandon. Currently, all Government MPs earn in excess of $10 000 per month and several of them did not earn half that amount prior to January of 2008.
• Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
