This week’s edition of People And Things continues the theme established last week and it is ironic that the events of the intervening period mandate that I now revisit these issues.
Last week’s contribution was intended to make the point that the “highly uncertain” economic situation we face is directly related to our peculiar political circumstances.
Summarily, I suggested that we are facing an unusually harsh economic challenge which has not been helped by the fact that our Minister of Finance (MoF) on this occasion has a limited “toolkit”.
Therefore while previous MoFs have successfully implemented structural adjustment programmes, this one appears to be struggling to “impose” his, which could have dire consequences for this nation.
It is not surprising that some readers were concerned that I was (yet again) defending Mr Sinckler by suggesting that this crisis was not “his” fault. This presumption is unfortunate, especially as my assertions were supported by evidence of our fragile and peculiar political circumstances.
The point needs to be made that while our present political configuration can sustain the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government in office, it will be difficult for this Government to impact meaningfully on our economic challenges since structural adjustment has never been approached in a political environment (like this), where the MoF cannot “crack the whip”.
This is not an attempt to defend anyone, but more my way of putting the DLP’s “victory” in proper context and highlighting the implications of such a weak Government.
In the days following the publication of last week’s article, the Opposition took a decision to target the MoF (who I previously defended) with a motion expressing a lack of confidence in him. The basis of this motion is that he has effectively been unable to articulate and implement a clear plan to address our economic challenges. This approach might at first blush appear inconsistent with my own characterization of the situation; however, this motion was not surprising and is a good strategic move on the part of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) leader.
It is effectively punishing the MoF for a situation over which he has little control, but it is the job of the Opposition to exploit political vulnerabilities and the MoF is clearly the Achilles heel of the DLP administration at this time.
Over the course of this (no-confidence) debate, the entire weight of Barbados’ economic crisis will be heaped upon the corpulent shoulders of the MoF and he will most certainly be blamed for what little has been done that is painful, what has been promised that is more painful and what has been ignored that should have been addressed.
The entire spectacle will be fully televised via the World Wide Web as 14 MPs attacking the competence and sincerity of a man who four short years ago was the person most Barbadians wanted to be their Prime Minister.
It is entirely possible that our MoF is made of Teflon, but it is more possible that this episode will further tarnish this “rising political star”.
It is perhaps important to state briefly why Sinckler is a logical target for this motion. The political logic is related to the “fact” that as it stands the BLP does not have the numbers to bring the DLP Government down, while the slender nature of the DLP’s majority suggests that any motion against the Government should have the potential to succeed.
It is entirely possible that within a matter of months the conditions may be right to achieve this objective. However, in the meantime the BLP has to guard itself against the perception that it is doing nothing and it therefore makes sense to target someone within the Government.
In addition to this major point, there is the obvious fact that the MoF is the location of major action and crisis at this time; hence it should follow logically that the responsible minister is responsible for the crisis (regardless of whether or not that is the case). Other factors that are known to political insiders make Sinckler vulnerable. These need not be discussed here, but suffice to say it will be interesting to see the political dynamic of a MoF who now needs to rely on the support of Cabinet colleagues that he’s often appeared NOT to be “of one mind” with. Sinckler noted that he is not unlike all of his predecessors who faced similar motions; however, unlike them, he cannot rely on a “threat” to fire anyone or call an election since he is not the Prime Minister.
This situation is, therefore, a most unfortunate one for Sinckler and however much this situation makes one “uneasy”, one is reminded of two important tenets of this business, along with the fact that this crisis was entirely predictable to the average person, far less one who sat in the MoF’s chair for two years.
The first tenet is that politics is not Sunday School and the second is that a brilliant politician is no different from a brilliant poker player – he needs to know when to “fold”.
In the case of Sinckler, that date should have been February 23 this year when he presumably agreed to return to the Ministry of Finance.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).