As the dust settled on the recent no-confidence motion against Minister of Finance Christopher Sinckler, the question that emerged most frequently was “who won and who lost”.
Regrettably, this issue was oversimplified by a DLP spokesperson who seems to think that the success of a motion revolves around the outcome of the vote. Ironically, the last time the BLP took power it came in on the heels of a successful vote of no confidence, but that occurrence should not delude people into thinking that these types of motions normally succeed.
Instead, a thorough review of similar votes across the Commonwealth will reveal that votes of no confidence generally fail, but are no less popular and this speaks volumes about the intended impact of this parliamentary initiative.
The popularity of the no-confidence motion is reflected in the fact that the Minister himself noted that all of his predecessors faced votes of no-confidence and there has been a healthy tradition of such initiatives on both sides of the house in recent times.
The more notorious no-confidence votes were faced by Ministers Taitt and Thompson, neither of whom were Ministers of Finance and both of which failed. Certainly these votes failed under different administrations but both were effective in bringing specific actions to the public’s attention and forcing the Government to answer important questions in the public interest.
It is against this background that I would continue to argue that this motion was both politically sound and strategically logical.
As one reads the motion, it was founded on the basis of concerns over the apparently perilous state of our economy and the conviction that our Minister of Finance was either not acting or alternatively acting improperly (or too slowly) to address these matters.
As one reads the document, the evidence is compelling and it is noteworthy that it spoke extensively to information that was already in the public domain.
We all knew that this is our longest prolonged recession (in modern times), that this Government’s deficit is of historic proportions and ironically by the time the debate closed, we received new information that our foreign reserves were at a historic low.
If one adds to this the well-known fact that our Budget seems to lack clarity in some areas, there can be little disagreement that an opposition which did not bring a motion of no confidence should itself be condemned for “falling asleep at the wheel”.
It is, therefore, easy for this author to arrive at a conclusion regarding success and failure since for me the opposition had an obligation to ask important questions and that it did.
The fact that the Government chose not to answer these questions is unfortunate, but this cannot be seen as a failing of the part of the Opposition.
Moreover the fact that such important opportunity to respond comprehensively to these questions was missed means that we were deprived of an opportunity to be informed on a matter of grave public importance.
In fairness this type of response to important questions is not uncharacteristic of the DLP. Indeed one can argue that the entire Government has now adopted the approach preferred by its leader and it should be stressed that this approach to governance was firmly endorsed in the February election.
Were this an exclusively political game, one could argue that the Government won; however, the fact that the livelihood of thousands of Barbadians is hanging in the balance means that this issue goes beyond political gamesmanship.
I, therefore, prefer to take a more cynical look at last week’s spectacle and it becomes clear that this Government approached the issue with contempt, believed that the opposition was “out of place” to bring the matter and as such believed it was justified in trivializing it.
In my opinion, this represents a profound misreading of the situation and one which speaks volumes about the extent to which the DLP believes itself to be accountable to “us” for this state of affairs.
The extent to which this Government appears to be “at sea” is also reflected in the fact that the sole speaker on the government side completely ignored the substance of the issue and sought to remind us of his origins in comparison to Mottley’s.
It is indeed a wonderful thing that a bright boy from Sinckler’s background can rise to the commanding heights of the Ministry of Finance; however Sinckler’s origins are as irrelevant as Mottley’s when seeking to understand the true state of our finances and how we can reverse this economic slide.
So for what it is worth, I congratulate the Stuart administration for another political victory which demonstrates their superior capacity to manipulate public opinion and retain power.
If elections were exclusively about winning, then their supporters’ back patting and chest thumping would be appropriate.
In reality elections are intended to facilitate governance and economic development, which makes the questions raised by the opposition all the more relevant and one therefore hopes that these will be answered sometime soon.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
