I hold no brief for Owen Arthur. Indeed, I see merit in the reasoning of those who say, politically, he is a “spent force”. David Thompson put it more delicately a few years ago when he said Arthur’s political shelf life had expired and that he had passed his ‘best buy’ date. However, I am beginning to see wisdom in Arthur’s caution in relation to the leadership of Mia Mottley.
Added to the deficiencies that even her staunchest ally or defender would concede, is the issue of judgment and what some may go further to describe as her tendency to “wing it”.
I wrote a few weeks ago of the seriousness of the role of Leader of the Opposition in Barbados and the need for Mottley, in that capacity, to step further up to the plate. As much credit as is given to previous Prime Ministers of Barbados, the success of this small nation is built also on the caliber of Leaders of the Opposition it has boasted.
With the Rt. Excellent Errol Barrow in the Chair, there was the Rt. Excellent Sir Grantley Adams, Sir Harold St. John and Tom Adams in successive first positions on the other side. With Tom Adams in the chair, there was Sir Frederick Smith and then Barrow again.
With Barrow back at the helm, there was Sir Henry Forde across the floor. With Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford in the chair there was first, Forde and then Owen Arthur. With Arthur in the chair, there was David Thompson, then Clyde Mascoll and then David Thompson again. Today, with David Thompson in the chair there is Mia Mottley in first position on the other side.
What Mottley’s predecessors in that office boasted that she obviously lacks was the capacity to raise their game to national and patriotic levels when the situation warranted. They also were perfect “timers of the ball”. They knew when and how to ‘sit it out’ and allow incumbents to make mistakes. They knew also when to go for the jugular and take their opponents out.
Mottley is today displaying acts of poor judgment that leaves one to wonder about her capacity, in or out of government, to make wise decisions under pressure. A good leader must keep a calm head. An effective Leader of the Opposition must know when to hold and when to fold. Every day in battle you must walk with your weapon. But every day is not shooting day.
Take for example the hastily called public meeting at St. Patricks the other night. Everyone in Barbados agrees that the manner in which the notion of a wage freeze in Barbados was introduced was unfortunate, but that there was merit in focusing the attention of the country in that direction. An entire week of debate and discussion produced that finding. The country was therefore ready for further and deeper analysis by the time last weekend drew near, and here is where the optic of Owen Arthur’s intended discourse would have been appealing.
Michael Lashley packed a huge crowd into the Bayley’s compound the previous Sunday and the optics of the BLP doing the same the following week would have been a political masterstroke, especially with Mottley and Arthur sharing the same platform. All Mottley needed to do was show up at the meeting and “bring greetings” when Arthur had concluded his presentation. She could then have endorsed all that he said and then outlined a plan of action for taking their campaign forward. For optical purposes and in grand Barbados Labour Party traditions, she and Arthur could even have embraced on the platform and leave there as a solid, cohesive unit, ready for battle against the incumbent government.
That would have been the natural strategy to adopt and that is what any or all of the aforementioned Leaders of the Opposition would have done. But not so with Mia Amor Mottley! She is a fighter. She wants to show Owen Arthur who is boss. She is on record as saying ‘two man rats can’t live in the same hole’. So she ‘out de light’ on Arthur and marshaled her troops to St. Patricks to show who is boss.
The St. Patricks meeting was a disaster! Firstly, it was not the environment under which the new candidate should have been launched or asked to speak. He was set up to fail and he failed, miserably. But over and above that, the meeting at St. Patricks brought back memories of Eric Sealy and the People’s Pressure Movement many years ago. Eric Sealy was a political lone ranger. He knew he was the drawing card and he left no one in the party in doubt as to who the people came to hear.
So frequently Eric would say to the other speakers “you all just go up and talk whilst the crowd is gathering. I will come on at 9:30 and take it from there”. In other words, it did not matter who spoke or what they said, because as far as my friend Eric was concerned the real meeting started at 9:30 when he began to speak.
Mia Mottley’s coordination of that meeting last Sunday was quite similar. She huddled together a disparate group of “her supporters” and just had them go up to the podium to make up time until her arrival. How else can one explain the role of Sir Richard Cheltenham in that line up? Johnny, as he is more popularly known, was clearly unprepared and lacking in focus or substance. He spoke as someone doing a friend a favor. He spoke but said absolutely nothing. So too did Trevor Prescod, Cynthia Forde and Anthony Wood. Lynette Eastmond’s presentation made one wonder about the wisdom of taking her down as the candidate and replacing her with Smith. But, that is a matter for the Barbados Labour Party.
Mottley clearly did not sit with the speakers and plan that meeting. It had no focus and there was no particular theme. Indeed, Cynthia Forde started by saying she had the greatest respect for the intellect and ministerial capacity of Dr. David Estwick. Subsequent speakers said the opposite.
Up to the point that Mottley mounted the platform, the message for the night was incoherent. The meeting was dragging and it needed to be lifted. What did Mottley do? She played right into the hands of Owen Arthur.
This squandering of a golden opportunity will be examined in a special edition of Under the Microscope in this weekend’s Sunday Advocate. Be sure to get your copy.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.