The public statement by Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler that he is willing to endorse former Prime Minister Owen Arthur serving on an advisory committee of government has come as a surprise to BU. His statement comes a couple days after Prime Minister Freundel Stuart made a similar statement. It is clear there is some public relations being done to smoothed or welcome Arthur’s entry into the DLP’s universe, a naked grab for a man who is widely regarded as one of the best economists in the region. The vast experience Arthur has accumulated leading Barbados for 14 years has positioned him as a priceless resource for an under resourced DLP Cabinet struggling to manage a contracting economy.
Until recently Arthur was the focal point of relentless attacks from the government that bordered on tactless and tasteless in the Lower House. Arthur may have contributed to the venomous attacks by his repeated references to a porakey parliament. BU believes the angst the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) side holds (held) for Arthur is derived from him having been the face of a successful Barbados Labour Party (BLP) for close to fifteen years. His extended tenure gave the DLP a long time in the wilderness to all but self-destruct. If Arthur had not allowed the Mascoll factor to muddy the issue for the electorate in 2007 many believe Arthur would have served another term. He was mercilessly lampooned in all areas of the media which a generous general election budget supported. An attack on Arthur that resonated with the public effectively decapitated the the BLP figurehead and shorten his coat tail. The DLP flawlessly executed the strategy to demonize Arthur in the last general election and Stuart was the beneficiary. Unfortunately the economic challenge that faced Barbados was a secondary message.
The courting of Arthur by the government is another example of how politicians play a susceptible public for fools. If it were a script for a play the title would be The Puppeteer and the Puppets. The key learning of the Arthur DLP scenario playing out is that politicians will do whatever it takes to win an election and to hell with the economy or anything else. It must be evident to even the political yardfowl that the Barbados economy was in urgent need of an incisive intervention by government leading up to the last general election but as the IMF Article IV report confirmed – that agency was asked to delay its review until after the election. There is the irrefutable evidence that the winning of an election was given priority over a contracting economy.
If the government were to successfully court Arthur, it effectively delivers a stinging slap to the face of Governor Delisle Worrell. Arthur has been the Governor’s harshest critic using an acerbic tongue for which he is renown. Then to observe Stuart, Sinckler, Inniss, Kellman et al in close quarters confabulating with Arthur will lend itself for comedic relief. Even on BU the harshest of Arthur critics have recanted to give lucid meaning to political expediency or yardfowlism.
Although BU agrees the time is ripe for a credible alternative political force, it is difficult to anticipate it will make a difference. The political class of Barbados is comprised mainly of those looking to benefit from self aggrandisement. The idea of representing the people – the job description of a member of parliament – appears to be an unknown accountability by the modern-day politician. Unless others from a different moral timber are willing to offer themselves to the public, it makes no difference if a third or fourth credible political party are formed. It is for this reason that BU dismisses the speculation about Arthur and a third party. If one is able to judge from the gloating by DLP surrogates on social media, Arthur’s resignation from the BLP has given confidence to the DLP that its narrow 2-seat margin in the Lower House is more secure. Is this Arthur’s objective?
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.