← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Owen Arthur

How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.

– Benjamin Disraeli


We hesitated to join in the post-election commentary of the last general election in Barbados. It seems to us that every Barbados Labour Party (BLP) politician, newspaper, call-in program, under the street light conversation are now rifted with discussion on the demise of the late Prime Minister Owen Arthur — the Americans refer to it as ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’.  Seems an appropriate analogy with the Super Bowl, the game which makes Americans go crazy, scheduled to be played today. We decided to offer a comment because unlike many of the political hypocrites emerging from under rocks, we have been public in our comments of Arthur long before the results of the last general election were known. Perhaps the fact that we did so under the cloak of anonymity explains it all!

Unlike the Right Excellent Errol Walton Barrow whose legacy was immediately known when he demitted office, Barbadians will have to wait to discern how history determines the legacy of Prime Minister Owen Arthur. We have a sneaky suspicion that it is one key reason why Arthur was inclined to run for a fourth term. The act of running and being victor in Election 2008 would have earned Arthur’s right to be recorded in history in a place exclusively reserve for him. Unfortunately for Arthur, he lost and as we alluded earlier, our historians will now have the job of affixing our late Prime Minister to his rightful place in our political history.

We have listened and read the comments of BLP insiders in the aftermath of the party’s defeat with a healthy interest. It is noticeable that a characteristic which was preached to Barbadians at the height of the Mascoll/Thompson leadership squabble, that is, the BLP was loathed to air dirty linen in public has now been tossed through the window. While we hold no brief for Arthur and have disagreed as demonstrated in many of our BU articles about some of his policies, we find the venom of the comments from BLP faithfuls to be interesting. The obvious question is where were these people who would have been able to impart their wisdom to Arthur before and during the political campaign. In the case of Clyde Griffith, one of the more vocal Arthur critics, we wonder why he was seen on the BLP platform if he felt so strongly about Arthur’s strategies. We are sure he was Chairman of a BLP meeting held in Eden Lodge. Would it not have done well for these dissenters to have raised concerns publicly before the last election so that the ‘party’ would have been able to respond to concerns before the election?

It is our belief that Arthur decided to run for a fourth term not only to secure the legacy we mentioned earlier, but there is another reason which the BU family has discussed several times. Arthur has moored the BLP to the political left; we believe that Arthur had grave concerns that the current leadership of the party would cause the party to revert to a position right of the political centre. Although many of us remain impress at the intellect of Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley, we think that there is a missing link. All is not lost for the Opposition Leader because she will have five years to initiate Operation Makeover.

Owen Arthur must feel betrayed by Griffith, Truss et al. Many BLP parliamentarians owe their lucrative pensions to the long coat tails of Arthur from the previous elections. With the exception of Mia Mottley, Ronald Toppin, Cynthia Forde and a couple others; the aura of Owen Arthur has tightly enveloped the BLP. Will Mia Mottley be able to fill the void which Arthur used the politics of inclusion to fill? Mia Mottley is an astute politician and we have no doubt that she knows that she will have to address some lifestyle issues, more importantly, she will have to attract new blood to the party to improve the talent pool caused by the departure of some veteran politicians.

Of interest to BU is the role the late Prime Minister will adopt on the backbench and the influence he is able to exercise in light of his handling of the Mascoll Affair to the obvious bemusement of the Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley.

 


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

36 responses to “Rise And Fall Of Owen Seymour Arthur”


  1. Arthur may have destroyed a good party.


  2. no one man can destroy a party. Governments are won or loss. Such is politics.
    The BLP lost because no other administration has been plagued with the number of scandals, and corruption that the last adminstration has been linked to. The BLP lost because the failed to deliver good governance to the people. The BLP lost because of thier arrogance. The BLP lost because they became morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt. Mental vagrants. The BLP lost because the electorate had enough of their complete disregard and respect of the middle and lower classes. The BLP lost because they put all the money on a broken down tired pony. The BLP lost because they were beaten by a youthfull energetic innovative and United DLP.
    Arthur was supposed to be the great guru up to 15/01/08, now the BLP are saying that he is the Idiot of inclusion.
    Funny aint it


  3. The BLP lost because in this third term they repeated the mistakes of 1986. It was a case of arrogance, perceived corruption and the MPs shunning the constituents


  4. Contemporary national political history would show that Mr. Owen Arthur acceded to parliamentary office in fairly controversial circumstances in Barbados. Indeed, he came to office on the basis of his having won the second by-election that was held to find a replacement for Mr. Burton Hinds, who had at an earlier point in time vacated the position of parliamentary representative for the Constituency of St. Peter in the House of Assembly of Barbados. Indeed, that first by-election to elect such a person to represent the people of that rural constituency, it must frankly be said, was TOTALLY AND WRONGLY declared null and void by a Barbados High Court that looked into the circumstances in which Mrs. Sybil Leacock had won this election by one vote in 1984. It must have been UNFORGIVABLY WRONG AND UNFAIR for that High Court to have overruled the will of those voters of the St. Peter Constituency, whatever the margin of victory. Rather, it would have been VERY RIGHT AND FAIR of it if it had properly upheld the will of those people.

    Anyhow, a second by-election was declared for the St. Peter Constitency. But, as nature would have had it to be there were the St. Peter floods that intervened between the time of that declaration and the actual holding of the election. The destruction brought about by these floods thus allowed the then fairly unpopular Tom Adams-led Government with the opportunity to provide much necessary relief for many of those who had been displaced and who had suffered as a result of these said floods. Incidentally, the person who now mainly blames Owen Arthur for the ousting of the BLP Government in the 2008 election, and who was once a minister in the said Toms Adams-led government in Barbados, was very heavily involved in the dispensation of that relief, which generallly was responsible for the turn around in the political fortunes of the BLP in the second electoral contest that was to come. The election did come, and, as that cliche goes, the rest was history for Mr. Owen Arthur and the BLP, as they went on to win that seat.

    Finally, while it is absolutely impossible to reverse ALL of the major and other political events that have happened in Barbados since Mr. Arthur would have become the parliamentary represenative of St. Peter, many of us – Barbadians – who had esp witnessed those by-elections, can still imagine that were it not for the irrationlity of the High Court, then, Barbados would have been properly saved from the worst and most disgusting brand of Prime Ministership that has ever been visited upon us in this post-independence history of Barbados. Certainly, Mr. Arthur, before entering parliamentary office, did NOT fight any struggle on the behalf of the masses or middleclasses of people of Barbados. For, much of his livelihood around that time was spent being very immersed in the world of academics and research, studying and indoctrinating himself with so many of those Western principles and theories that have been so very irrelevant and useless to the greatest growth and development possible for the nation and people of Barbados, and was spent being fairly detached from the clear and unending strugggles of the masses and middle classes of people of Barbados. Also, one of the worst things about Owen Arthur’s very empty legacy is that he and some others in Babados ( Mr. Clyde Mascoll included)sought to view and did practice national politics as if it were something to be organized, structured and consummated on the basis of personal, cronistic, and party achievement, on the basis of strengthening existing national and regional elitist corporate relations, and on the basis of the practicing of his brand of favourable media politics in Barbados. Surely, all of these massive deficiencies would have helped to form the basis of a recipe for his being a very failed prime minister. GOOD
    RIDDANCE!!

    PDC

  5. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    Owen Arthur started out well but somehow lost his way.

    My family and I will not remember him favourably. This is the Prime Minister under whose watch Land in Barbados is now out of the reach of ordinary Barbadians. How can we get over that?

    This is the Prime Minister under whose watch Barbados became over run by Guyanese much to the detriment of Barbadians. As a result of this free for all policy he instituted there will be serious social upheaval in Barbados in the not too distant future.

    His misguided policies has left Barbadians with a serious debt burden. My children’s tax dollars will be repaying unnecessary loans for questionable projects for many years to come.

    This is the Prime Minister who presided over the near distruction of the Quuen Elizebeth Hospital. Barbadians were afraid to get sick for fear of having to go to the QEH. He brought a once mighty institution almost to it’s knees. It is said that the busiest department in the Hospital was the morgue.

    Threr is much, much more, but I will give others a chance.

    We could not wait to see the back of him.


  6. Owen Arthur started out well but somehow lost his way.

    My family and I will not remember him favourably.
    ……………………………………………………………………..
    Sometimes we allow politics to cloud fair judgment when we are discussing performances. Someone might accomplish 99% good and 1% bad, but you know we as a people would only comment on the 1%. I am wary of statements attributed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and how Barbadians fear going to the institution. Your statement is most unfortunate. I bet if one of your family becomes ill, you will be ignoring the negatives within your article and be heading straight for the same hospital you are crying down.

    Yes, I might agree with our Health System might be a notch below what we expect it to be, but we are fortunate to have the best Health Care System in the Caribbean. Did you check our oil-rich Caribbean neighbour, whose Hospital had patients actually lying on the floors awaiting care?. I am speaking about Trinidad, have you ever seen patients lying on the floor at our health institution?

    We keep stating our premier health institution is failing, but have you sit down and be fair to yourself?. Just look at the 24-hour clinics being operated by the same doctors and nurses who work at the same QEH and to whom you might go to and pay the high cost for health care. We are looking at the same doctors and nurses who are employed with the same QEH you are lambasting. If these same personnel can perform such fast service at privately-owned institution, why then can we have a faster service at the QEH? Are we hearing ‘money talk”. How come the language of “conflict of interest’ not applied to this sector.

    We have a new Minister of Health who will encounter the same problems that occurred with the last minister and you will either be singing the same negative tune or start keeping your mouth shut.

    Remember, health care is one of the most difficult ministries to manage. But we need people of your ilk to concentrate on the good and try to give positive alternatives for the bad. That is what will make a better public.


  7. Why do people always try to benchmark to standards which are below what we have become accustomed? The success of Barbados has been that other countries with far more resources have always seen us as a model to follow e.g. our sugar production model, the tripartite arrangement between Union, Government and Private Sector, our stable political climate and we could go on.


  8. Well written piece PDC.
    A Corrupt decision from the start landed Owen in Parliment. And we have been paying for it ever since.


  9. Carson C. Cadogan,

    Government doesn’t set land prices, you brainless fool.

    In order for foreigners to buy land, Bajans first have to sell it to them.

    Goat!

    Michelle P.


  10. You must always apply benchmarking to appreciate how you are proceeding. I agree with you that we are in the vanguard in almost every aspect of development in the developing world. We have a better postal service than Britain who set up our system, we were the second country in the world to have a telephone system, less than fifteen years after the discovery by Alexander Graham Belle. We have the third oldest Parliamentary system in the world. We were one of the leaders in the supply of running water to homes and we were with the leaders in having television. Now that is what you call being in the forefront in development, even before countries with lucrative resources.


  11. Kick a man when he is down…so typical. Lets see what this administration can CHANGE before we get all high and mighty!


  12. Anonymous,
    Could not agree with you more. That post was PDC’s best.


  13. If Owen Arthur is as bad as we now hear he is, why did Barbadians allow him and the BLP to govern for 15 years?
    He must have been doing some things right.
    Do politicians become arrogant after 10 years in parliament or do the enter parliament arrogant?
    Could’nt our new government politicians be already arrogant but we won’t pay attention

    until 10 years have passed.?

  14. notesfromthemargin Avatar
    notesfromthemargin

    People’s Democratic Congress,

    How do you reconcile your remarks with the fact that the People Of St. Peter re-elected him several times (at least twice in the face of HUGE national swings against his party)

    I think your comments about the “irrationality of the high court” ignores the will of the people who voted for him, and in a democracy THEY are the people who matter.

    Marginal


  15. reminds me of the way we treat our cricketers when they have contributed for some time.

    we cuss them
    ridicule them
    try to minimise their contributions
    we forget their efforts and we hang to the new ness of other players

    man stop de crap

    the dlp won
    the blp lost
    case closed
    lets move on and help to build our country barbados. i tired of the talk talk talk

    man leh we move and support this government whether or not we voted for them. the people have spoken. lets move on man !


  16. ROBOT // February 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    reminds me of the way we treat our cricketers when they have contributed for some time.

    we cuss them
    ridicule them
    try to minimise their contributions
    we forget their efforts and we hang to the new ness of other players

    man stop de crap

    the dlp won
    the blp lost
    case closed
    lets move on and help to build our country barbados. i tired of the talk talk talk

    man leh we move and support this government whether or not we voted for them. the people have spoken. lets move on man !
    ==============================

    No need to stop dissecting the last 14 years in order to move forward. We can do both, In fact it is absolutely necessary for moving forward on a sure and sound footing, that we completely explore, investigate, digest, and understand what has occurred under the Owen Arthur government.


  17. Those who fail to learn from the past are destined to repeat it.


  18. I believe that Owen Arthur and his band of brigands have no one to blame but themselves for the outcome of the election. Like Carson Cadogan said Owen started out well but lost his way. As I have said numerous times on Barbados Free Press Blog the lack of Accountability, Transparency and Integrity will always be the downfall of public figures. In particular politicians who seem to forget after the first term that they serve the people and they serve at the pleasure of the people or in the case of the former BLp government since 1998, the displeasure of the people. This election have shown that regardless of your budget, the media spin or feel good injections into the economy. History will show that Owen Arthur ruled the country using fear and threats to keep people in line including the BLP members. Hence Truss, et al all out attack on him. He abused his position to manipulate people into submission. Sir Henry Forde, Clyde Griffith, Mia Mottley, Sir Richard Chetltenham and several senior civil servants.


  19. lol
    I guess David became prime minister by being nice and sweet to everyone around him and spreading love…LOL! Do you guys realise what nonsense you right. Behind the scenes of any and every political institution there is a lot of ‘ maneuvering’ whether overt or covert. Being a leader in the political realm is no laughing matter so take off wunna blinkers!

    check Hilary vs Obama…both democrats!

  20. sick and fed up sylvan Avatar
    sick and fed up sylvan

    I am glad to see the back of Owen Arthur. May his political soul roast in hell! May Barbadians treat him with utter disrespect in the same way that he disrespected them. History is going to be unkind to Owen Arthur. He had a golden opportunity to make a real difference for ordinary Barbadians but all he delivered was loads of frothy rhetoric. Barbadians today are worse off after 14 years of Arthur as prime minister. Wasn’t this man supposed to be the great economist, the man with the plan and magic wand who only had to command “let there be growth” and so would it be. Arthur the great leader was a creation of propaganda. When you looked at how the BLP treated propaganda, you could see a Nazi influence. Bajans now see Arthur for what he is. And they are hearing so from his BLP colleagues who are humiliating him by saying his leadership was a sham. And so ends the fairy tale of Owen Arthur. Good riddance!


  21. The DLP and Barbados electorate did the BLP a favour by getting rid of that government. Another term and all the gains of the first 6-7 years of Arthur’s administration would have been completely eroded and reversed, in some areas they already have.


  22. Thank You, Anonymous and Son of Scrooge.


  23. Are we a people who base our political decisions on slogans such as ‘time for change’?
    Remember when the DLP ran with the slogan ‘keep them out sweep them out’ ?
    Don’t you think with all the university graduates in this country and free secondary education we should be a more analytical electorate?
    I am not saying we should’nt have voted for a change of government but the reason should not be change for the sake of change.
    As a citizen of Barbados I am only now hearing of the real shortcomings of the BLP .Before the election many wrongs they did were not known. If what is now known is true they got what they deserve.


  24. Me // February 4, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    lol
    I guess David became prime minister by being nice and sweet to everyone around him and spreading love…LOL! Do you guys realise what nonsense you right. Behind the scenes of any and every political institution there is a lot of ‘ maneuvering’ whether overt or covert. Being a leader in the political realm is no laughing matter so take off wunna blinkers!

    check Hilary vs Obama…both democrats!
    =============================

    We know this, but a lot of Barbadians where sold on the lie of a united BLP. BFP and BU should not spare any information in an effort to dispel this big untruth. This lie was actually use as a campaign strategy by the BLP and this is why it needs to be exposed.


  25. Lally // February 5, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Are we a people who base our political decisions on slogans such as ‘time for change’?
    Remember when the DLP ran with the slogan ‘keep them out sweep them out’ ?
    Don’t you think with all the university graduates in this country and free secondary education we should be a more analytical electorate?
    I am not saying we should’nt have voted for a change of government but the reason should not be change for the sake of change.
    As a citizen of Barbados I am only now hearing of the real shortcomings of the BLP .Before the election many wrongs they did were not known. If what is now known is true they got what they deserve.
    ==============================

    Lally this is why you should never put away your skepticism, for someone else lies, and emotive words. It was really simple for me to believe that the BLP was as divided as the DLP, for i asked myself how would i feel if i served my organization faithfully for many years and a newcomer comes and get a nod before me, would i feel good about it.? No. All across Barbados employers both in the public and private sector frowns of what they term “super-session” how come the BLP seems to be immune from such fall out? The last time i check the BLP was made up of Bajans too. I am not surprise by the comments from George Griffith and Aaron Truss, they grew up in the same culture as me.

    Slogans can be empty, and they can also encapsulate and thus market a detail thought process. Former US Senator Patrick Moynihan coined the slogan “Dumbing Deviance down” and it has taken on a life there after. It’s context was captured in the Book the “Politics of Deviance” by Anne Hendershott.


  26. for i asked myself how would i feel if i served my organization faithfully for many years and a newcomer comes and get a nod before me, would i feel good about it.?
    ……………………………………………………………………..
    Fantastic observation Adrian, simply fantastic. Wonder how Parliamentarian Kellman feel? He is Bajan too!!!!!!!!!!!!


  27. frankology // February 5, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    for i asked myself how would i feel if i served my organization faithfully for many years and a newcomer comes and get a nod before me, would i feel good about it.?
    ……………………………………………………………………..
    Fantastic observation Adrian, simply fantastic. Wonder how Parliamentarian Kellman feel? He is Bajan too!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ==============================

    Indeed he is entitle to feel that way, but if i am to judge his mood by his recorded words after the fact, he appreciates that being a maverick, doing it alone, not demonstrating some loyalty and support for the Leader indeed being an army of one can lead to this sort of outcome. I maintain that Kellman could not have expected loyalty to him from Thompson when he could not be counted on for such from Thompson, and i go further. 😀 Thompson could not have made his decision without the input of others, and Kellman knows this. The DLP is not an institution void of it’s members, and leaders, and Kellman has continued to speak of the DLP as if it were. The fact remains that the cabinet make up is the perogative of the Leader who is picked by the majority of the parliamentary group. Thompson could only have committed some wrong in the omittion of Kellman if the other parliamentarians and the the majority of the rank and file DLP members say it is so. If they did not and do not then he did not do wrong.

    Anyway i see a big difference between the two.


  28. Anyway i see a big difference between the two.
    …………………………………………………………………….
    But I did not blame Thompson, remember he is one of the six past parliamentarians and we now have 14 new parliamentarians who were conscious of a cabinet pick. As I see it, everyman for himself. This had nothing to do with loyalty, but surely reflect your first statement. That was a case of super-session thrown through the door


  29. Of course you cannot “blame” Thompson. There is no one or anything to apportion blame for or too. It has always been the PM’s right and will to staff his cabinet as he sees fit. For me it was no mystery why Duguid or Edgehill where not Minsters in Owen’s Cabinet.

    …..The rationale of super-session is not fitted to picking of cabinet members across parties. there is no precedent, or practice within our parliament that demonstrate or speaks to concepts of super-session with Cabinet assignments.

    Members at all levels of the BLP had a problem with Arthur politics of inclusions, here in lies the difference. Arthurs attempt to install disgruntle DLP losers as candidates in selected constituencies, ran against the BLP long held tradition of the Branch office deciding who gets the nod. That piss off real real Bees.

    If Thomspon omission of Kellman is deemed by a significant number of DLP members across all levels as a bad thing, then it can be said that he did something wrong, but i think that Thompson was given much leeway in picking HIS team of candidates and it can only be concluded that not many within the party has a problem with his cabinet.

    You need to pick sense from Mia’s words here as i have done and which to my mind clearly demonstrate the attempt at partisan politics on your behalf on this issue.

    When Kellman or any other parliamentarian gains the loyalty to his or her cause from amongst his equals then he can make the case of supersession.


  30. Lets us not forget that as a cabinet under Westminster, there is collective responsibility. As a maverick and minister the first major decision of cabinet that he strongly disagreed with, would require his resignation.

    So how long would he last as a minister 3 months, 6 months?


  31. I am friend of all and satellite of none.However I am totally amused to the point of feeling sick with some of the comments I have heard on call-in programs and read here and the daily newspapers.Owen Arthur whether we love or hate him brought this country out of misery,restoring confidence everywhere and to most.I heard with my own two ears die-hard Dems at the time in close quarters praising after what we went through with the previous Prime Minister.He also has to be credited for Bajans no longer looking at the party as “Elitist and for de white people”He totally changed that perception which will now come back now he is no longer in forefront.All the Blpites who are now talking nonsense,when they were beneficiaries,they had nothing to say.The blp has lost now they all want to blame Arthur!He had to carry the party all by himself since the others went along for the ride.The DLP did not win the election,the BLP lost it.If a country has two major parties, one drowns itself in too much honey,there is only one alternative.All Thompson had to do was to sit back and wait.I don’t care about all the analysis and post mortem,my opinion is that the DLP was such a weak opposition that the last BLP administration self destructed.I bet that this opposition will spark peoples interest again in politics which we used to enjoy from as far back as 1971 with Tom Adams.It is a fact that the young people caused the swing.How many of these young people that voted are using these arguments that everyone thinks is responsible.I heard one young lady say she voting”cause David giing we two bank-holidays”.She ,I hope would have been in the minority.My feeling is most of the young people that voted only knew Arthur from the time they became aware of their surroundings.In ’76 the late great Errol Barrow,father of Independence who gave us Free Education,Free Books,School Meals and brought about the most change for poor people suffered the same fate of the young people at that time.Anyway since I am only 50% Bajan I don’t share some of the same views as most 100% Bajans. I like Brian Lara,Rihanna, Owen Arthur,…………


  32. […] was very concerned that Mr. Arthur had fallen into bad company. I think Owen Arthur has a lot of bad friends. I hope that Mia does not continue these […]


  33. […] (found through Global Incident Map): link (I wonder whether the communist Chinese sent their buddy Owen Arthur any Valentine’s Day candy?) [Los Angeles Times] MEXICO – Bomb was assassination plot, Mexico […]


  34. Just wondering how much taxpayer dollars dem new round of consultants with two and three other jobs and specific expertise costing struggling bajans who cant even find one job! Mmmmm…change you say?


  35. Just wondering how much taxpayer dollars dem new round of consultants with two and three other jobs and no specific expertise costing struggling bajans who cant even find one job! Mmmmm…change you say?

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading