Recent history both here and elsewhere has shown how powerful a weapon a motion of no confidence can be when it is deployed with skill and timing and is supported by a factual basis on which the arguments and substance of the motion is grounded. The mover must always carefully consider his or her position before tabling such a motion.
The Opposition Leader’s filing of such a motion not against the Government directly but against the Minister of Finance, Chris Sinckler will raise the political temperature, as this motion is a dagger pointed directly at the political heart of a key Minister. Public interest will demand that it be debated at the earliest convenient opportunity.
There can be no mistaking the message being sent to the citizenry by this action. As we speak, the economy of this country is under the spotlight and the policies and performance of the Ministry of Finance are being exposed to the kind of scrutiny to which it was similarly exposed in the early 1990s.
Accurate reflection will show that the country pulled through the severe difficulties of that period but a successful no-confidence motion in 1994 led to the downfall of the Sandiford administration. There are similarities and differences when one looks at the two situations.
Then, we had no foreign reserves and the government was accused of selling the family silver in the form of the Heywoods Hotel which is ironically enough back in the news, as well as the shares which the country held in the Barbados Telephone Company Limited.
Now we have what are described as adequate foreign reserves but politics being what it is, some will argue that these are the legacy of the outgoing administration of the Opposition party.
Since Mr Sinckler assumed the office of Minister of Finance in 2010; there have been some events which have attracted the criticism of his detractors and of the Opposition. We venture to say that criticism is par for the course, and Ministers must expect to hear it from time to time. It is after all part of the system of accountability.
But in recent times some developments have warranted more than ordinary scrutiny. The admission that the Medium Term Strategy had failed to meet its objectives was an eye opener. One expected that the last Budget would have been a clear platform for plotting such corrections of the economic compass as were required; and that the Ship of State could move full steam ahead with a gradual return to financial equilibrium. But the Budget Debate spawned further controversy, with the disclosure of a $300 million drop in reserves, among other budget issues, fuelling continuing concern about the economy.
Now, despite what the Minister has labelled a successful road show, the Government has had to suspend its attempt to borrow on the financial international market, and the country is now shown to be on track to experience negative growth for this year and the next. All this, after the Scotia Bank/UWI loan postponement.
These economic missteps justify the debate. It will allow the Government to defend the record of the Minister and the Opposition to state its case. Whether it leads to any change of policy or a change of Minister or more is for the Parliament and the people to decide.