AS BARBADOS ENTERS another election year, the signs are pointing to the use of “devaluation” as a propaganda tactic in much the same way that “privatisation” was used as an emotive tool to influence the outcome of the 2013 general election.
In 2013, after a term which can kindly be described as being “ordinary”, the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) cleverly developed a false narrative around the issue of “privatisation”, and the opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) was drawn into a technical debate, which painted the BLP as the party of privatisation and the DLP as the defenders of the family silver.
This reached a crescendo with a pre-election rumour suggesting that the BLP had taken a decision to send home 10 000 public officers. It became a farce with the “lady in the bus” political advertisement, which suggested that the BLP, if elected, would eliminate free bus rides for pensioners.
It was later proven a hoax, after the election, when the DLP ended the policy of free tertiary education, dismissed 3 000-plus public sector workers, and openly adopted privatisation as seen most recently in the sale of the oil company (BNOC). The DLP also reversed itself and brought to an end Barrow’s free tertiary education policy.
Interestingly, the BLP under Owen Arthur in 2013 fell into the trap of erroneously engaging in a “serious” technical discussion on the merits and demerits of privatisation. His ideological opposition to the notion of Barbadian “entitlement” blinded him to the fact that the DLP neither believed nor disbelieved in the idea of privatisation.
What Arthur failed to understand was that the DLP knew that the public was opposed to privatisation and cared only about re-election. He paid a heavy price for his naiveté.
Today, an exact carbon-copy of the privatisation debate, now repackaged as “devaluation” is being unfurled by the DLP as it prepares for another election following a term which can only be described as one of failure.
Similar to what was done with privatisation, the main aim of the DLP is to paint itself as the anti-devaluation party and to draw the BLP into a technical debate, the outcome of which will be to paint the BLP as being not as resolutely opposed to devaluation.
This explains the Minister of Finance’s resignation “grand charge”, and the Prime Minister’s loud anti-devaluation pronouncements before the chamber of commerce. Contrary to what our economist friends may assume, these declarations do not mean that as policymakers Sinckler and Stuart are “objectively” opposed to devaluation. They are not.
However, given the success of the anti-privatisation narrative in 2013, the devaluation debate has presented them with an ideal opportunity for a repeat of the tactic. Once the BLP makes the error of hinting at the “technical” possibility of devaluation, the DLP’s re-election strategy, will be on its way.
•Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, specialising in regional affairs. Email: tjoe2008@live.com
