The just concluded general election in Barbados was like no other. First, I congratulate the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) for regaining the reins of Government, albeit by a reduced majority.
Kudos are also in order for the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) for strengthening its numbers in the Lower House. We have an Opposition that has greater potential this time around to keep the ruling party on its toes.
On reflection, an assessment of the poll reveals both gains and spoils that call for some analysis. On the gains side, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart’s hand has now been strengthened. With the issue of the Eager Eleven behind him, he can rest more comfortably since he took his army into battle and won his own victory.
The mantle of leadership was thrust upon him on the last occasion. The passing of the late Prime Minister David Thompson could not have been predicted in 2008 when the DLP had tremendous goodwill among the populace which gave them a two-thirds majority in the House of Assembly.
Mr Stuart became the Prime Minister in 2010, having been selected not by the people but by the parliamentary group in very difficult circumstances. The 2013 election saw him leading his party united into the general election, going to war if you will, and returning with his “game”.
The Prime Minister’s support base is not just among the parliamentary group; it also resides within the bowels of the people.
Secondly, the DLP administration and its policies have been the target of relentless criticism ever since the recession closed its tentacles on the global economy. The economists and politicians alike have been unstinting in their contention that the economic woes of Barbados are due to poor economic management and have less to do with factors beyond our shores.
In fact, the president of the Caribbean Development Bank recently said that Belize and Guyana had shown economic growth even within the context of the global recession which had not eased but deepened. This election victory is seen by many as an endorsement of the economic policies of the DLP administration and of the much maligned leadership of Prime Minister Stuart.
But there have also been gains for the BLP in this election. The party, which according to pollster Peter Wickham was expected to be swept into government with a two-thirds majority, increased its standing in the Lower Chamber by 33 and one-third per cent.
In a sense, the electorate warmed toward the BLP in a way that brought it close to the reins of power, though not close enough. With a strategic two-seat difference, the Opposition is now in a position to land more body blows on the policies and approaches of the ruling party.
Given the narrow, delicate balance of power in the Lower House, the Freundel Stuart Government will be walking a literal tightrope on which it must maintain balance and focus.
If the Opposition plays its cards correctly, the election results have given it numbers which, if used sensibly, can guarantee it the Government when the bell is rung in five years.
With Mia Amor Mottley at the helm, the Government will be kept on its toes and should it ever be caught napping, the balance of power could easily be snatched from its clutches.
It is significant that while the DLP has lost four seats, the BLP has strengthened its base in Parliament.
With respect to the spoils, two members of the last Cabinet lost their seats and a number of hopefuls were unsuccessful. There is a widely held view expressed by one political advisor that poor representation was punished and weak candidacy rejected by the electorate.
In the assessment of many people who analyzed this election, it was a watershed in the history of our parliamentary system. Both Mr George Pilgrim, general secretary of the ruling party, and Mr Ronald Jones shared this view just after the results were announced.
The level of what has been called “character assassination” was unprecedented. Already, a number of people, including former Minister of Housing Michael Lashley, are threatening lawsuits.
There is a school of thought that in the aftermath of defeat and in the euphoria of victory, many threats and emotional outbursts are known to be made. Only time will tell whether they will surface after the dust settles.
But the greatest spoil is the charge and concern raised by the Prime Minister and many members on both sides that the commercialization of the ballot, otherwise called “vote buying and vote selling”, reached unprecedented levels in this election.
There was at least one incident in which an elector was said to have been caught capturing his vote on a cellphone camera, apparently with the intention of providing confirmation for the buyer. In some constituencies there were reports of hundreds of iPads and LCD television sets being received by electors.
The Prime Minister has promised to peruse all existing laws in order to bring the perpetrators to justice. It seems as though we have moved from the era of “corned beef politics” to a point where ballots are now a commodity for sale and buyers as well as sellers pervade.
While the gains merit celebration and jubilation within the context of our electoral traditions, the spoils, especially the putrid practice of the commercialization of the ballot, must be strongly condemned. Any semblance of support for it has the potential to undermine our otherwise excellent democratic traditions. The thought that, in such circumstances, any interest group or constituent will one day be able to “buy out” an election is frightening.
• Matthew Farley is a secondary school principal, chairman of the National Forum on Education, and a social commentator.
