The answer is yes! I am confident of the government of Barbados moving on with its social and economic agenda, following the death of David Thompson and the appointment of Freundel Stuart as new leader of the country.
The philosophical and policy outlook of the Democratic Labour Party is not derived from a lucky-dip type undertaking. There is a clear trend of thought that inspires and determines how policy positions are arrived at. The late Rt. Excellent Errol Barrow set forth a charter for Barbados and the party in the mid 1980s that was followed through and implemented by Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford and the DLP Cabinet of 1987 to 1994. Several of Sir Lloyd’s initiatives and ideas were, understandably deferred or amended in the 1994 to 2008 period of Barbados Labour Party rule, but again the party hit the road running in 2008, with a resumption of its social and economic charter, this time, under the leadership of David Thompson.
While death has robbed us of his physical presence, his flight plan for Barbados was set forth in a clearly discernible manner. Thompson had his finger on the pulse of every sphere of social, political and economic undertaking and activity in Barbados. He had a clear concept of the five year work programme for each line ministry. The blueprint is there!
In the engine room, at all times in the past 10 years of preparation and initiation, was Freundel Stuart. He knows and understands the plan. He partnered Thompson in articulating that programme in the highways and alleyways of Barbados. Stuart could be relied upon to place ideas and initiatives in a philosophical framework. He was the mighty distiller. He, perhaps more than anyone else, knows and understands the often times indiscernible line that separates the two major political parties. There ought to be no fear of Stuart deviating from the philosophical flight path as set forth by previous leaders of the DLP.
But leadership in the 21st century is a far cry from that of the 1960s and 70s. The burden on a leader of any of these countries is onerous. He or she has in effect to be Octopus-like in orientation. You have, in very simple terms to run the country while at all times keeping your finger on the pulse of the political thermometer.
Established structures such as the civil service and the very Cabinet of ministers are there to assist and enable, but each leader in today’s Caribbean society must have a cadre of personal advisors and confidants upon whom he or she can rely for personal-interest advice. In the 1960s and 70s it was called a kitchen cabinet. Today, it has evolved into a team of advisors or personal staff with concentrated and indeed, exclusive devotion to the wellbeing of the leader. The composition of such an advisory team ought to be the exclusive prerogative of the leader. He and he alone should select and compartmentalize his team of advisors.
A person assuming the mantle of leadership, under circumstances as tragic as those of Freundel Stuart, should be given the freedom and latitude to select and surround himself with a team of advisors in whom he has the utmost confidence. David Thompson created such a structure in 2008 and while customary Bajan social snobbery was brought to bear in the critique of his selections, he dug in his heels and stuck to his beliefs and convictions in an effort to attain his desired comfort level.
David Thompson was transparent. He came public with his private staff. He insisted that they be paid from the public purse. He did not rely on private business moguls to sustain them.
But his private staff, was precisely that; His Private Staff. A person operating at the level of Principal Political Advisor to a Prime Minister is not easily transferrable from one leader to another. Such is as preposterous as selecting a dentist or a gynecologist in a lucky dip. These are personal selections which each leader must be given the latitude and the opportunity to make. It’s not like an Ambassadorial appointment, where an office holder can place his or her resignation at the disposal of the new leader, in the hope of having it turned down. That, while noble in appearance, is in itself unfair to the new leader.
Karl Rove knew that he would have left the White House with George W Bush, no matter who had won the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Of course, Rove supported John McCain and wanted a Republican President in the White House, but there was never any doubt about him ceasing to exist as Personal Advisor to The President of the United States of America, when once George Bush had made his final exit from the Oval Office. Leaving the job is simply the decent thing to do.
I have enjoyed every moment of my service with the late Prime Minister of Barbados. I am as committed to the cause of the new leader as I was to that of the former leader, but, in this business, a person must know when it is time to step aside.
I am a proud member and servant of the Democratic Labour Party. I shall be in the forefront of the promotion and defense of its policies, but such can be done from any area of the battlefield.
For the time being, I simply pause, to take fresh guard.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.