It is clear to observers of recent Barbadian politics that silence is the instinctive reaction of the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) whenever it confronts a major challenge. The DLP’s non-response to the no-confidence motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition against the Minister of Finance should therefore have come as no surprise.
Whilst a more Machiavellian-bent analysis might congratulate the Government for shutting down the debate, given its historic practice of dismissive silence, the DLP’s refusal to speak when important questions on its economic stewardship were being raised, appeared arrogant, callous and insensitive.
Above all, however, the silence was most damaging to the Minister of Finance who has been shouldering the brunt of the Government criticism. By refusing to come to his defence, his parliamentary colleagues were sending a clear signal that they were not willing to tie their political fortunes to his.
Perhaps, aware of his possible abandonment, he had reminded his constituency group the previous Sunday that whilst he was at the centre of the no-confidence motion, the entire Government was on trial. Given the fact that the minister had not appointed himself, he, at the very least, deserved some affirmative confirmation from the Prime Minister responsible for his appointment.
To fully appreciate the implications of the Government’s silence for Minister Sinckler, one only has to consider what it would have meant had it been a case where the no-confidence motion had been against the Prime Minister, and his colleagues remained silent.
Clearly, so committed is the DLP to the strategy of silence, that the stature of the minister was sacrificed in its defence.
The minister is perhaps so low down the totem pole that the negative message sent out by his colleagues’ refusal to stand in his defence was considered a price worth paying.
On the other hand, the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) appears to have fallen too easily into the trap of endorsing the DLP’s strategy of silence.
If the aim of the DLP was to allow as little negative talk as possible on its economic stewardship, by refusing to participate in the debate, the BLP played into the hands of the Government.
Indeed, had the BLP seized the moment to engage in an extended and detailed critique of the DLP’s economic stewardship, the silence of the DLP would have appeared more and more awkward, and its callousness and indifference multiplied with each passing moment.
By refusing to extend the awkwardness of the DLP’s silence, the BLP blunted the potential for public indignation at the Government’s silence on an important issue of national concern.
If a positive could be taken from the debate, however, it would be that whilst the no-confidence motion on the CLICO issue was “punished with laughter”, this one was taken so seriously that it was treated with a respectful silence.
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, specializing in regional affairs.
