“As I said Sunday night, principles only mean something when it is inconvenient to stand by them, and the issue is not the Opposition’s absence, the issue is Michael Carrington’s behaviour as Speaker of the House, both in relation to, one, failing to recuse himself while this matter is brought to a closure by a Committee of Parliament. That has been our position. The other bigger issue, of course, is his behaviour that caused the whole incident to happen in the beginning, and the repayment of the money, does not wipe out three years of failing to pay the money.” – Leader of the Opposition Barbados Labour Party, Mia Mottley, on its boycotts of the House of Assembly with the Speaker in the Chair.
UNCERTAINTY WITHIN A POLITICAL PARTY is not a plus for a leader unless it is being sown effectively within the ranks of your opponents.
The failure of Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley to prise out a report from the Committee of Privileges on the actions of Speaker Michael Carrington and the subsequent admission of defeat after a decision by the House of Assembly not to accept a motion of no confidence, apparently in lieu, along with issues such as the still unresolved Dr Maria Agard MP matter, raise some disturbing questions.
They relate not only to her own future as leader of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) but also to its image in the perception of voters as an organisation that is serious about wanting to form the next Government.
Now, Mottley is a politician and parliamentary representative with about three decades of experience.
Given the history of Governments of keeping away from the public domain certain reports about which they are not comfortable – among them the St Joseph Hospital and the report from the National Reconciliation Commission, which we still have not seen after many years but may become more pertinent now especially in view of the recent “missing woman” controversy that raised racial issues – it borders on naivety to expect the Stuart Administration to be any different.
Further, virtually on the eve of the annual Estimates debate, did she really expect the Prime Minister to hand her another whip through the motion of no confidence against a Government whose own missteps have become the stuff of legend?
But what was almost laughable, if it wasn’t about so serious a matter affecting our system of parliamentary governance, is the nebulous notion that the Carrington issue can now be thrown to the people for them to decide.
Which public, and when?
After all of the ill-advised boycotts (which attracted a thoughtless, low-class comment about not turning up to do the people’s work but checking in for lunch), does she really expect the “people” to now effectively do the Opposition’s work for it?
And, when?
The silliness of the last-ditch motion of no confidence by a party that has had its own issues with such motions also raises the question of whether this BLP ever had a clear strategy for handling the Carrington matter.
Mottley’s ostensibly high-minded decision to pursue a solution through parliamentary procedures and processes has clearly now backfired and she was finally persuaded by no other than the Stuart Administration which has shown that it has its own way of dealing with Parliament itself.
As quoted in the press last Wednesday, Mottley reported that she had been informed by way of letter that Deputy Speaker Mara Thompson had considered the motion and that it had been ruled “out of order”.
Parenthetically, as I have previously noted, a similar fate awaits in the report from the Committee of Privileges which will likely dismiss the charges against Carrington as not being “properly before the House”.
“This letter brings to an end today [last Tuesday], to Parliament’s handling of this matter in respect of this motion,” she told the media.
“The Government and the Deputy Speaker have the power to rule it out of order. We do not agree, but that is her right to do so and we simply say this is a matter for the people.
“The Barbados Labour Party is very clear about our position on the matter. For us, this has always been a moral and ethical issue.”
It was lame admission by Mottley that those within and without the BLP who had suggested early in this matter that a parliamentary route was a wrong turn and that the issue should be kept in the court of public opinion, where a drumbeat of constant pressure could be kept up on Carrington and the Democratic Labour Party, could now feel vindicated.
One MP affirmed mischievously that looking to parliaments around the world for guidance on “morals and ethics” – pointing to the “cash for questions” scandal in the United Kingdom some years ago, people would quickly realise there would be no members.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent.
