The reports which first surfaced in the December 7 Sunday Sun of yet another rift between Minister of Agriculture Dr David Estwick and his colleague Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler have been largely treated cynically by the Barbadian public as a “here we go again” moment.
To many, it is just another episode of Dr Estwick “talking again” and very few expect any decisive political response from him or any major shift in the existing “political stalemate” as a result of his “noise”.
However, to greet a major and open disagreement over policy by two senior ministers in a Cabinet with a shrug, and to brush aside the issuing of ultimatums to a prime minister by a disgruntled minister as “business as usual”, is to accept the end of the practice of Westminster government in Barbados. Objectively, Dr Estwick’s public declaration of a breakdown of trust with a colleague who he alludes has “misguided” the Cabinet is a politically abnormal situation.
However, much of the problem which Barbados faces today is that the overall state of governance is so abnormal, that abnormal behaviour has become normal. It is insane to be sane in the land of the insane.
It is this which explains the condition of “stalemate” to which Dr George Belle has recently alluded, since the public is unmoved by situations which require movement. It is a death which is not quite death, to use Dr Ralph Gonsalves’ biting metaphor.
However, despite the numbness of the public to political abnormality, it is intellectually irresponsible to dismiss the recent complaint by Dr Estwick of his differences with Mr Sinckler over the financing of the sugar industry as an insignificant political development.
The quarrel between the two ministers must be taken in the context of the wider economic failures of the current administration, whose Ministry of Finance has decided on cutbacks, austerity and taxation as its main response to the crisis. This has resulted in the downplaying of Government investment in potential growth ventures, and the hamstringing of critical ministries in fulfilling their most basic functions.
Dr Estwick stands out among his colleagues as one who is unable to hide his displeasure with such a narrow, and, by all accounts, unsuccessful economic strategy.
In Dr Estwick, one senses a degree of professional frustration that the important sugar industry is dying under his watch. His professional pride is at stake. Given his medical qualification, Dr Estwick does not “need” a ministry . . . . [He] has the capacity to resist his own administration on a matter of principle.
Finally, Dr Estwick’s actions are only possible under a weak, silent leader and uncertain administration. His only fault is in talking without doing what he should.
Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, specialising in regional affairs. Email [email protected]
