It was treachery with a smile on its face. Perhaps that was the worst thing of all.
– Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1993 on the cabinet colleagues who had advised her to stand down in 1990.
THIS PAST WEEK, the world stood up and acknowledged the passing of Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret “Iron Lady” Thatcher – some to praise her and others to vilify.
There was no doubt that whatever one thought about her leadership style or ideology, Thatcher simply could not be ignored and as the tributes flowed, it became even clearer, as one writer said, that she was the Conservative Party’s best-loved – and much-loathed – leader.
Her biographer John Campbell described Thatcher as “the most admired, most hated, most idolized and most vilified figure of the second half of the 20th century”.
Thatcher’s approach, whether leading the Tories or the country, after taking over the party in 1975, was to brook no dissent and only displayed some pragmatism in her mellowing years.
Whether her style and legacy can serve as models for other leaders around the world to emulate will be as much the subject of debate and speculation in years to come as they are today, more than two decades after she demitted office.
In a discussion with some friends, the conversation almost inevitably turned to a comparison of the Thatcher style with that of our current Prime Minister Freundel Stuart and, given her harsh treatment of some cabinet colleagues, the speculative question was posed: how would she have dealt with the so-called Eager Eleven?
You will recall that when Stuart was himself faced with a challenge in the now infamous letter from the Eager Eleven seeking a meeting to discuss his leadership style, he too, made reference to “treachery” and his disavowal of such an approach to leadership change in the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP), noting that treachery was not taught at Foundation School, his alma mater.
He subsequently promised Barbadians that “heads would roll” following what was widely regarded as a botched attempted “palace coup”, but none of those reportedly involved in seeking the meeting with Stuart felt his wrath and for the most part are still safely ensconced in his Cabinet.
In the intervening election, voters appeared to have relieved Stuart of two of his ministers and while one, a known strong supporter, was restored through the senatorial gift, the other’s ministerial fortunes failed to negotiate the political bend.
As the 2013 general election approached, some people were asking how Stuart managed to step down from his “heads will roll” stance to a position where he appeared to be indicating that all had been forgiven and the Eager Eleven were now safely back in the DLP fold.
That would not have happened with the “Iron Lady”, my friends argued.
One example that readily came to mind during our discussion was the way Thatcher dealt with her foreign minister (1982-83), the late Francis (later Baron) Pym, who was a leading member of the so-called “Wets” or the Tory opposition to her government.
During the 1983 general election campaign, he said on the BBC’s Question Time: “Landslides don’t on the whole produce successful governments.”
This was publicly repudiated by Thatcher, and Pym was summarily sacked after the election, and she also, for a brief time, reportedly issued a gag order forbidding secretaries of state (ministers) from appearing on panel shows, especially the BBC programme.
Those who were anticipating similar action by Stuart against at least some of his more prominent challengers following the election have so far been disappointed.
Apart from his startlingly refreshing offensive against the Opposition on television and on platforms during the campaign, Stuart has again demonstrated that for all his talk about the “hard politics” to come, he is certainly not in the mould of the Margaret Thatcher-type of politician.
“I am not a consensus politician,” Thatcher told Britons in 1979 when she became prime minister, “I am a conviction politician.”
But to be scrupulously fair, I reminded my friends, the pragmatism that Stuart displays as a mature politician was found by Thatcher in her later years in office.
And as some commentators pointed out, the woman – whose forceful leadership disembowelled the unions, sold off state industries, savaged the welfare state and let loose the free market forces – was more pragmatic than the legend suggests.
• Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email [email protected].
