The news that former Prime Minister Owen Arthur has declared publicly his discomfort with the leadership of Opposition Leader and head of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP), Mia Mottley, must have come as welcome relief to the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) which, prior to Arthur’s published letter of complaint, had been occupying the hot seat of public disapproval over the contentious handling of public sector lay-offs and its wider austerity policy intentions.
Indeed, the bemusement of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart was palpable in his very astute stoking of the divisive fires within the BLP by sympathizing with Arthur, and by craftily hinting that the country should be curious about Arthur’s discomfort with Mottley.
Of course, it is obviously in the DLP’s interest to attack whoever is the BLP’s formal Opposition leader, while promoting the challenger. Thus, when Arthur had previously taken over the reins from Mottley, DLP parliamentarians were uncharacteristically friendly towards Mottley and vociferously condemned Arthur as power-hungry, treacherous and anti-woman.
However, while these events have provided the DLP with much needed breathing space, they are unlikely to advance Arthur’s leadership aspirations. Coming so closely upon his failed re-election bid after retaking the leadership from Mottley, and at a time of BLP post-election reorganization in a period of national economic uncertainty, Arthur’s actions will likely hurt the BLP.
In addition, he will undermine his own public standing, since he will appear stubborn and unable to accept his electoral defeat as an indicator of the desirability of his leadership, and to place personal ambition beneath party and country.
None of this is intended as a normative statement on the desirability of Arthur’s leadership. Instead, it is a call for a new approach. In this regard, Arthur should be guided by two considerations.
First, he is duty-bound to present compelling reasons
for his abiding discomfort with Mottley. Unless he can convince the public that the shortcomings of Mottley which trigger his perennial discomfort are incontrovertibly detrimental to Barbados, then his frequent outbursts will not be accepted as reasonable.
Thus far, Arthur’s published explanation for his recent missive, reads more like an “excuse” rather than an explanation. His angry stance over the inclusion of his name in a proposed “eminent persons” group was like burning a mansion to kill a cockroach.
In addition, his belated complaint over the selection process which elevated Mottley, suggested lingering bitterness, coming so long after the actual decision and when the BLP had resettled itself post-election.
Secondly, he should consider procedure and mechanism. Whilst Arthur is free to pursue or oppose leadership, he should use his ample stature to propose concrete mechanisms which will advance democracy and minimize blood-letting and acrimony. Instead of shouting from the rooftops unbefitting a former leader, he should let the people decide. Let the membership select the leader.
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, specializing in regional affairs. Email tjoe2008@live.com.