SOME MONTHS AGO, I commenced a reflection on the types of approaches that can be taken to assess our leaders and noted the extent to which there were qualitative and quantitative criteria that could be used.
Naturally the qualitative approaches are more substantive and in due course I will attempt an assessment of the legacy of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart compared with that of his predecessors. The quantitative approach is, however, more straightforward and we can already make assertions regarding Stuart’s placement in our history books based on the length of time he has been in office.
We have now had seven leaders in Barbados and only one of them was not elected, while the time the others have served has varied. This reality could facilitate a crude classification structure that identifies three types, namely the:
I. Long-standing leader category;
II. Intermediate leader category; and
III. Transitory leader category
I propose to put two leaders in the first category, namely Errol Barrow and Owen Arthur, based on a simple logic. Barrow was our first Prime Minister and served for three months short of ten years, in the first instance and thereafter served for a single year totalling 11 years in two sittings. Barrow set a clear historic standard against which all other leaders
would be judged, especially as he was re-elected and previously served five years as Premier.
The other leader accompanying Barrow in this exclusive category is Arthur, who served for 13 years and four months and holds the record of our longest serving Prime Minister and the one who won the most elections (as Prime Minister). It is also interesting to note that Arthur lost two elections (2008 and 2013), which means that he has the same number of defeats as Barrow (1976 and 1981) and this classification therefore includes one long-standing leader from each party.
The term “transitory leader” category also captures two leaders, one of whom was elected, while the other’s selection by his colleagues was not ratified by the electorate in the next election. Reference is made here to Bernard St John and David Thompson, who served for 14 months and 33 months, respectively. The comparison of the two is somewhat awkward since Thompson won an election, while St John failed in his first (and last) attempt at being elected to the office of Prime Minister. Thompson of course left office under tragic circumstances and by this time had effectively served half a term if one considers the length of time he was on leave prior to his passing. We can therefore also identify a single transitory leader from each party.
The intermediate leader category captures the other leaders and it is proposed that Stuart be classified within this group, along with Sir Lloyd and Tom Adams. All three of these leaders won an election, with Adams winning two and serving the longest term (102 months) before leaving office under tragic circumstances. There could be some contention that Adams be classified as long-standing since he compares unfavourably with the others in his category who only won a single election; however, the point can equally be made that both Arthur and Barrow distinguished themselves by winning more than two.
Among the three leaders the BLP’s (Adams) stands apart from the DLP’s two, (Sandiford and Stuart) who share much in common. Both Sandiford and Stuart won an election after being selected by their colleagues on the death of their predecessor and it is interesting that if Stuart continues to the maximum of his remaining term he would have served one month longer than Sandiford and would become our fourth longest serving Prime Minister. Stuart is therefore sandwiched between a leader who is just shy of long-standing and the other who is the only one whose government collapsed.
Certainly if Stuart were to contest the 2018 election successfully then he would find himself in the company of Arthur and Barrow and would, interestingly enough, become the only undefeated long-standing leader. If, however, the 2018 election goes differently and Stuart either loses or does not contest, as is being suggested in some quarters, he would by February of 2018 have earned his place as the fourth most successful Prime Minister of this country IF measured in terms of time served.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director
of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
Email: [email protected].
