While listening to the recording of Owen Arthur’s “rebirth” speech two Sundays ago, my mind reflected on these lines from Bertolt Brecht, the German poet, in which he questions how great some of the great men of history really were:

The young Alexander conquered India. On his own?

Caesar defeated the Gauls. Did he not even have a cook with him?

Philip of Spain wept when his Armada went down. Did no one else weep?

Frederick the Great won the Seven Years’ War. Who else won it?

On every page a victory. Who cooked the celebratory feast?

Every ten years a great man. Who paid for him?

So many stories. So many questions.

It was clear, from listening to Arthur, that he has not learnt the fundamental lesson of the January 15^th, 2008 General Elections. One-Man leadership is over. The days of the Maximum Leader are gone.

Here is a former leader of Barbados addressing a meeting of a constituency branch of his party, and never once, in his more than 80 minute presentation, making reference to or promoting in any other way, the qualities and leadership of his now esteemed leader, Mia Amor Mottley.

Arthur spoke in a tone as to suggest that he is still the opposite number to David Thompson. His portrayal of the BLP was that of a party with a strong past but absolutely no present or future, at least, on its current trajectory.
There was nothing about the 2009 Barbados Labour Party that Owen Arthur found inspiring, credible or even worthy of note. He, quite understandably, chastised David Thompson, Chris Sinckler, Michael Lashley and other leaders of the current administration, but never once, not in the most abstract way, did he highlight the one year effort of his successor or any of her seven other colleagues in Parliament.

Arthur spoke as a loner. Hamilton Lashley is described as the lone Independent Member in the current elected Parliament of Barbados. If the word ‘independent’ means today what it meant when I went to St. George Secondary School, then Owen Arthur spoke two Sundays ago as an ‘independent’ person.

As a proud, card-bearing member of the Democratic Labour Party, it is not expected that I would offer Arthur well meaning political advice. However, as a student of politics, I believe someone should whisper in “the little man’s” ear that you do not make a successful comeback by publicly negating or even undermining the leadership of your successor. It is the job of the Hartley Henry’s of this world to examine, criticize and even undermine the declarations and actions of the Leader of the Opposition. We are on opposing sides and we would hardly ever be expected to pat each other on the back, even if it is well deserved.

But, when you have led a party for 14 years and you are toppled from office by a disappointed and fed up electorate, you do not, in 12 short months, make a bid for preeminence in your party, without letting it at least appear that you have pulled or are pulling your weight. Mr. Arthur attended less than 20 per cent of the sittings of the new Parliament. He spoke twice and is not on record, according to my sources in the BLP, as having attended a single meeting of that party’s Parliamentary Group. Therefore, while we all would agree that his successor’s performance has been less than stellar, it certainly is not morally and ethically right for Arthur to be publicly acting in such a way as to further black eye his leader.

If, as a trained economist, he has a perspective on the economic goings on in the country, rather than grandstand and beat his chest about what he would do if he were still in the Chair, Mr. Arthur should, quite correctly, share his ideas, knowledge and fears with Ms. Mottley, the Shadow Minister of Finance or any other functioning member of the Shadow Cabinet.

Not only did Arthur promote only himself in his speech, but he also sought to bring into question the professional judgment of some of Barbados’ most celebrated economic brains. As far as Arthur is concerned, it would appear, there are Economists and there are Economists. He is An Economist and no one else is, according to the inference that could be drawn from his pronouncements. But what is the record of this self proclaimed Dean of the Economic Corps?

Is this the same leader of a government that chalked up in excess of $750 million in cost overruns on several dubious public sector projects? Is this the leader of the party that spent over $300 million on hotels that are now valued less than $40 million? Is this the leader of a government that did not make the currency distinction in relation to the construction cost of the new prison?

Bertolt Brecht is correct when he questions how great some of the great men of history really are.

Here is a man who had a perfect batting wicket and whom history will show scored precious little runs. $300 million was spent, under his watch, on a cricket stadium that today cannot seat more than seven thousand and for which there can be no useful purpose after the setting of the sun.

Little wonder that few, if any Barbadians expressed any interest in what Mr. Arthur had to say on issues of the economy in particular. Hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at social and infrastructural problems over the past 15 years, and today, Chris Sinckler is battling to solve those said, same problems.

Using Bajan parlance, some persons would say, Arthur has ‘gall’!

Hartley Henry is a Regional Political Strategist. He can be reached at hartleyhenry@gmail.com