IN THE PAST WEEK, the Barbados press was abuzz with the comments attributed to Minister of Commerce Donville Inniss, who in comments to a NATION news reporter, indicated that he could not much longer tolerate the lack of action on critical issues facing the country, principal among which was the “sluggish economy”.
Inniss felt it necessary to remind Prime Minister Freundel Stuart that since he was Prime Minister “for the time being” and had the overall responsibility for the Government, then it was Stuart’s duty to engage with the public on the many issues causing public anxiety.
The use of such strong words from a Cabinet minister, objectively, is the stuff of news. Quite ironically, however, given that the relevant Cabinet minister was Donville Inniss, the comments were subjectively a non-event. This is so for several reasons.
First, like the boy who cries wolf too often, there comes a time when the villagers will cease to listen, whether or not the big bad wolf may be lurking. Secondly, the Cabinet of which Mr Inniss is part has witnessed several ministers “breaking for themselves” and saying and doing their own thing. Finally, and relatedly, the head of Cabinet has had a weak record of disciplining ministers and enforcing conformity, even in the wake of failed revolts.
When taken together, all of these reduce the Donville Inniss brouhaha to a damp squid, best ignored, until future events prove otherwise. However, whether or not Donville Inniss is a non-event, it still requires some sort of political explanation.
First, Inniss is the true neo-liberal ideologue of the Cabinet. He does not speak on behalf of the people or the worker. He is instinctively the voice of the private sector. If the South Coast tourism interests are hurt by the sewerage problem, he sees it as his duty to speak on their behalf, whether or not he offends his fellow Cabinet ministers.
Secondly, Barbados has faced the weight of managerial failures in recent times, which no doubt would be proving disconcerting to members of Parliament, who have to interface with constituents in a fast approaching election year.
Inniss, by seeking to distance himself from the Government, was merely reflecting the early sign of buckling under collective pressure of these basic managerial failures from Combermere school, water shortages, garbage disposal problems, drainage and flooding issues, as a quick shortlist.
Finally, it is clear that Inniss sees himself as a future leader of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP), and is therefore seeking to distance himself from these failures.
This Shaggy-like “it wasn’t me” approach is likely to result in deep resentments from his fellow cabinet members. If Inniss genuinely aspires to rise to the top of the DLP, he would be well advised to assume a path that will draw his colleagues into his corner, rather than to alienate them.
Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, specialising in regional affairs. Email: tjoe2008@live.com