At the recently concluded Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Annual General Conference, Prime Minister Mia Mottley called out a few of her ministers and other party officials, reminding them that holding office is a responsibility, not an entitlement.

She warned that ministers who are not performing, engaging with constituents, or meeting the expectations of Barbadians should not assume they will automatically remain in her Cabinet. She reminded the party faithful in attendance that accountability, discipline, and results are key performance indicators for evaluating the performance of elected representatives and branch officials. She further posited that the BLP’s success will depend on maintaining high standards of service and responsiveness to citizens, rather than relying on past electoral victories.

“Right now, we choose our political leader from the parliamentary party. Is that the right way for us to go forward? Should the delegates of this party also have a role to play? I believe so. But I believe there has to be a hybrid approach, as is the case with many modern political parties…”

Prime Minister Mia Mottley

To the ears of the blogmaster, it all sounded ‘deja vuish’. We can recall when the late Prime Minister David Thompson won office one of his first acts was to summon permanent secretaries and other public officials to Sherborne Conference Centre to deliver a similar warning to Mottley’s. It made little difference, also not to forget the empty promise to deliver a suite of transparency laws.

The question being asked arising from the public shaming of Cabinet ministers by Mottley last week – has she lost control of Cabinet? It is a matter of fact that ALL ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. In her 2018 Press Interview with David Ellis, Mottley asserted that her decision to appoint a large Cabinet under the mantra – many hands make light work – will be vindicated with time. Well, has it been?

There is a dichotomy at play in Barbados where the BLP has become complacent by electoral success, having won all the seats in three consecutive general elections, however, there is a systemic failure of under performance by key members of the Mottley cabinet. A reminder, Prime Minister Mottley is the one making the accusation..

The issue Barbados must come to terms is not whether a few ministers are underperforming. Every government, regardless of political affiliation, will have weak links. The issue is that after three successive general election victories and unprecedented parliamentary dominance – some say of being a de facto dictatorship – Prime Minister Mia Mottley felt compelled to publicly lament poor performance and weak engagement with constituents by some members of her Cabinet. If these deficiencies persist after eight years in office, responsibility can no longer be confined to individual ministers. It points to a failure of Mottley’s leadership. This is not to be confused with a political opposition that unable to capitalise.

In any organisation, sustained underperformance is ultimately a leadership and governance problem. Ministers do not appoint themselves, define their own priorities, or remain in office by their own authority. They serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. If accountability is being called for by the Prime Minister – she who has the power to fire – then Houston, we have a problem. We are facing the consequences of a political system weakened by the absence of meaningful electoral competition and effective checks on executive power. We are facing a Constitutional crisis.

Here we have the BLP winning every seat in three consecutive general elections, BUT, it has become a national liability. The electoral dominance has ushered in complacency, and complacency has predictably led to under performance. Prime Minister Mottley’s remarks were therefore more than a rebuke of a few errant ministers – it is an admission that despite commanding unparalleled political power, her government is struggling to deliver the standard of governance that Barbadians were promised.

Are we there yet?