Now that the Prime Minister has finally identified the date for the next general election as February 21, the logical next question is whether it is possible for the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) to reverse its fortunes and win the election.
This question is presented from the perspective of the DLP simply because I have been convinced that elections in the Caribbean are invariably always a referendum on the Government’s performance.
One former prime minister said that “oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them” and as time passes, it becomes even more apparent that he was correct.
As such, this election presents itself as a referendum on the performance of this Government and three previous surveys (Nation/CADRES Barbados Today/ CADRES) have suggested that early indications are that the DLP Government and more importantly its leadership, have been found wanting.
One appreciates that a public opinion poll is just a snapshot in time and political opinion can and does change. Certainly the intention of a political campaign is to change political opinion and since a day in politics is a long time, a 21-day campaign could theoretically change the political outlook for the DLP.
The likelihood that this could happen can be assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively and this article will attempt to do both. The latter assessment benefits from CADRES projections that chronicled the rise and fall of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Government.
The appended chart presents (at top) the last two polls which were conducted four months and one week before the 2008 election (respectively).
It is immediately obvious that the DLP, which was successful in the 2008 poll, was actually behind the BLP four months prior, although by that time the swing against the BLP was already 5.5 per cent.
As is the case with this campaign, the 2008 one was short and the one poll conducted during it projected an outcome that was not dissimilar to that of the actual election.
More importantly, the comparative analysis of the two polls suggest that between October 7 and January 8, the DLP grew by seven per cent and also that in the final week of the campaign, both the BLP and DLP were able to “grow” their support by one per cent.
Naturally these arguments all presume that the reader has some regard for the accuracy of the CADRES poll which should of course not be assumed. Presuming that one does, it seems clear that in the last election the general direction of the electoral swing was established four months prior to January 2008 and while the DLP was still behind, the seeds of its victory had already been sown.
Although there is no way to know how much the swing fluctuated in that period, it is also clear that the campaign which started in December added six per cent to the DLP’s support. This is especially interesting since the poll was conducted before the DLP’s meeting at Haggatt Hall which was touted as the crescendo of its campaign.
The actual impact of this meeting therefore appears negligible since the DLP had by then already won the election and thereafter both parties grew their support by amounts that were negligible.
Mid-term or out of season polling started in 2005 and facilitates this type of analysis of the 2008 election. However, election polling during the 2003 and 1999 campaigns also suggested that impact of an election is minimal, since the general direction of the swing tends not to change and neither does the leading party, although the quantum of the swing might fluctuate marginally.
In the vast majority of elections here a minor fluctuation would have little impact on the overall outcome. However, in both 2008 and currently, the swing needed to bring about change is quite small and a small adjustment could make a major impact on the final outcome.
The qualitative assessment of the likely impact of this election would proceed against the background of several of my previous articles which have been critical of this administration’s re-election “strategy”.
Suffice it to say that I struggle to identify strategic initiatives which it has taken which can be placed under the microscope. The election was announced at a time when Barbadians already believed it was overdue and in a way that provided no strategic assistance to the DLP.
It is curious that the DLP announced a major meeting and hinted that a “big” announcement would be made there. We all presumed this would be the announcement of the election date and many would have been surprised when it was announced quietly the day before. The meeting then morphed into a “report to the nation” at which only virtual reports were available.
The matter of the appropriateness of the announcement being made by way of the Barbados Government Information Service (BGIS) is perhaps as irrelevant as the debate over the constitutionality of an election more than five years after the previous one.
In both instances the issue is not whether the acts are illegal or unconstitutional, but more importantly, whether the acts are politically wise. In both instances the Prime Minister has sought to defend himself by reminding us that he has acted within the law. Sadly he does not appear to appreciate the extent to which the fundamental issue is political and not legal.
The announcement of the election date would have been one of the last remaining opportunities to present himself to a mass audience in a way that was favourable. For some inexplicable reason, he surrendered this to the BGIS which meant that one was immediately less compelled to attend the meeting.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that within hours of the DLP’s announcement of an election date, the BLP covered Barbados with posters and therein sent a strong signal of its readiness. At the time of writing the DLP was yet to erect one poster, which easily conveys the impression that the DLP called an election for which it was not completely ready.
Traditionally, governments have spent their initial week of campaigning defending their record, while the second week is one during which they move on the offensive. In this instance the most memorable aspect of the Prime Minister’s major speech is his rather offensive statement which “accidentally” confused the gender of his opponent.
This comment was in my opinion both silly and offensive, especially as it demonstrates the extent to which he seems not to appreciate how much explaining he needs to do.
As such, it is difficult not to conclude at this time that the advantage remains with the BLP and while the DLP could reverse its fortunes in the thankfully short campaign, it seems unlikely.
• Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@ caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
