Last week Barbados and the region lost one of our more distinguished sons, Sir Richard Haynes, who rose from simple origins to become a leading medical specialist, minister of finance and later leader of the most successful “third party” since Independence.
Certainly, any of these three achievements would warrant some significant accolade. However, I am inclined to focus on the slightly less obvious contribution which speaks to the way in which he has changed our political behaviour and impacted our politics.
Sir Richard started his political journey as a member of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP), largely because he was of a generation that was more impressed with the politics of Errol Barrow who captured the imagination of several young black professionals who thereafter sought to use their enhanced understanding of the world to make a contribution. People like Sir Richard appeared more inclined towards Barrow than Adams on account of their age and familial proximity but, regardless, they gravitated towards the “DLP philosophy”.
This philosophy captured not only Sir Richard, but also the imagination of this country and as such, the DLP’s support in elections between 1966 and 1986 was 53 per cent on average. This allowed the DLP to dominate this political era and even when it lost in 1976 and 1981, its support did not drop below 46 per cent (1976). Since 1986 the party’s average support was 45 per cent, which was eight per cent less than it was before and at its lowest point (1999) it fell to 35 per cent.
This is clear evidence that a political event of seismic proportions occurred after 1986 and this was clearly the entry of Sir Richard’s National Democratic Party (NDP). The impact of those events should not be understated as the 1999 election demonstrated that the loss of a mere eight per cent support was sufficient to facilitate a devastation of the DLP.
Sir Richard’s assault on the DLP is not presented as the achievement of a politician who was disgruntled or vindictive. Certainly, there are those who see him as one who desired to lead and who, when unsuccessful within the DLP, decided to throw a political tantrum which impacted on those left behind. I am of a somewhat different (although cynical) opinion that is born of the appreciation that what Sir Richard desired was no different from the desire of every single other politician, locally, regionally and internationally. The desire to lead and the confidence to offer oneself is no cardinal political sin. Moreover, the fact that he had something meaningful to offer sets him apart from the dozen odd political corpses that have walked away from political parties across this region.
At the height of its popularity, the NDP captured the attention of 16 000 voters or 13 per cent of the electorate. These were predominantly Dems who were impressed with Sir Richard’s charisma and alternative approach to economics; but these were also Dems who would never think the same way again politically. Since Independence, Dems had grown accustomed to supporting the DLP without a moment’s thought about why they shouldn’t; however, the NDP allowed Dems to think outside of the DLP’s political box. These persons supported the NDP while it existed. However, they subsequently supported the Barbados Labour Party in 1999, which was entirely unthinkable in the pre-Haynes era.
Barbados has always been politically polarized and I have more recently been reflecting on the inherent developmental benefit of such a tradition. We are now more educated than before and should theoretically be capable of assessing the relative benefits of both parties and making our decision to vote accordingly.
In such an environment, to state that one would vote for a “dead dog” if the party leader sent it is an affront to the millions of tax dollars spent on our education. Indeed, it could equally be argued that to support a party regardless of one’s confidence in the ability of that leader is equally illogical.
Although there were clear differences in the style of Sir Richard and Sir Lloyd, it is fortuitous that there were also clear philosophical principles upon which supporters could “hang their hat”. In these times it is ironic that two such principles were the need to control Government expenditure and Government’s natural inclination to “print” excessive quantities of money. Along with his ally, A.W.A. McClean, those among us who paid attention clearly understood the importance of these principles to a small open economy and perhaps if more of us listened to them, we would not now be contemplating how to finance a deficit of $400 million.
Well done, Sir Richard!
• Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).