The maligned and disparaged former Prime Minister Freundel Stuart spoke recently at a DLP St. Lucy branch meeting. His intervention unleashed a torrent of public debate about whether it was a prudent decision for him to speak. Equally, if it made sense for the branch to have invited him to speak. One has to assume the invitation was approved by the hierarchy of the party. We should recall the ‘challenge’ when the St. Peter branch wanted Caswell Franklyn to speak at a branch meeting during the brief Ronnie Yearwood ‘era’.
It is no secret the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) suffered a humiliating defeat with Stuart at the helm in 2018. Many pundits, including the blogmaster opined that Stuart did Verla Depeiza no favour in 2022 by providing minimal political capital for her to draw on – she also suffered a 30-0 drubbing. It is 2025 and the DLP remains politically stunned and shows little sign of revival in the near term. It is against the foregoing that Stuart attracted a volley of criticism for accepting the invitation to speak at the St. Lucy branch meeting last month.
For those who suggested Stuart should return to his comfort position by courting silence, how should this be interpreted? Unlike those who demonstrate a naiveté by stating the obvious, that is, he has a democratic right to speak – the more politically mature and insightful approach is to add context. Stuart is not a popular politician, he was the Prime Minister who was in charge during a difficult period for the country. What sensible reason could anyone in the DLP offer for injecting Stuart into the affairs of the party in a public way at this time? He could have shared his personal views at a private meeting if the objective was to give insight into the so-called ‘Lost Decade’ to party members. Although a political party in Barbados is nothing more than a private club in Barbados, any internal wrangling will have national implications. It is the government in waiting?
There is no need to be prolix on the matter of Stuart being invited to address party faithful in the glare of the public, it was dealt with exhaustively in this space on other occasions. An interesting wrinkle to the story was former minister Donville Inniss’ strident defence of Stuart’s ‘right’ to speak. Things that make some go hmmmm.
If the DLP wants to be taken seriously there must be a course correction. Good luck!







The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.