Over the past few weeks two scenarios presented themselves which epitomize irony as it relates to the broader issue of public confidence (or lack thereof) in this Government.
The first relates to the strange reactions of businessman “Bizzy” Williams who seems to be having yet another public epiphany, as he expresses concern over the potential damage that public criticism of this Government can have on our economy.
The second hits closer to home and relates to the NATION’s recent editorial about “negativity” which seemed odd for a newspaper that a few days earlier published a photograph of two teenagers having sex on the back page, which it claimed was appropriate since people had the right to know the “truth”.
The irony of Williams’ concern lies in the fact that this is the same businessman who a few short years ago also admitted to having lost a considerable amount of money in REDjet which was an early victim of the Stuart Administration’s tardiness.
After a prolonged wait to receive regulatory clearance, this airline was promised an opportunity to suckle on Government’s (albeit sore) “nipple”. Sadly that baby died before the “nipple” made its way around to the airport and one would have thought that this experience would have made Williams understand the consequences of governmental dithering.
There are many among us who are loathed to admit that this Government is no longer popular and moreover there are many among us who question the extent to which it was actually popular in February of this year.
Notwithstanding these perceptions of popularity (then or now), the Stuart administration triumphed in the February election “fair and square” and while members of this fortunate Government are suitably pleased with themselves, we are now beginning to realize the extent to which this was a “pyrrhic victory” with implications for our political and economic stability.
Perhaps then Bizzy is simply being politically naive when he suggests that the negative economic environment is a result of Opposition expressions of negativity and not of the Government’s own making. One can argue that this “negative” environment is entirely related to this Government’s approach to business which has not changed since February, but is now complicated by the fact that too few among us repose as much confidence in this Government as Bizzy does.
In such a situation the Opposition has a clear choice between telling the truth (as the SATURDAY SUN did last two Saturdays ago) and lending support to the Government by remaining silent, which to my mind would be a betrayal of the prevailing popular sentiment which is gravely concerned about this situation.
Historically elections have been seen as the ultimate reflection of the important dual indicators of governmental popularity and public confidence; however these peculiar circumstances are perhaps suggesting the logic of “delinking” the two concepts. If governmental popularity is properly understood, the elections should present a government that a majority of Barbadians have expressed a preference for by way of votes.
Strictly speaking this has never happened in Barbados since it has always been the case that the cumulative votes cast for the losing party added to the quantity of persons who did not vote (stopped home) amount to more than the votes cast in favour of government. Thus far the DLP has come closest to being popular in 1986 with 45 per cent of the total possible votes in an election where Barrow won 24 of the 27 seats.
Ironically this DLP Government is now the least popular ever in our history with only 31 per cent of total possible votes cast in its favour. Interestingly this Government is not dissimilar to the 1991 DLP government which claimed only 32 per cent of total possible votes and collapsed in three years.
This one’s fragility is, however, complicated by its two-seat margin compared to 1991’s comfortable 18 to 10.
If 40 people in St Michael Central were not persuaded to vote for the DLP on Election Day, we would have already gone back to the polls.
It should not be thought for one moment that the Stuart administration is the first to find itself in this unpopular situation.
Indeed the 2003 Keith Mitchell administration in Grenada had a similar configuration, winning only 27 per cent of total votes cast and an 8 to 7 margin, with the eight seats being won by seven votes.
In Grenada, that government lasted a full term during which its confidence was tested more than once. Presumably the difference in Grenada is that after winning all 15 seats in 1999, Mitchell understood the art of communication, while in the wake of his historically slim victory, our Prime Minister argued that the election had proven that he was “right all along”.
His administration therefore continues on smartly with consequences that manifest themselves with regard to public confidence in our economy.
Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).