Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []}; googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.defineSlot('/27575914/BTInsideArticleCovidAd', [[250, 250], [300, 250]], 'div-gpt-ad-1631125303402-0').addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest(); googletag.enableServices(); }); --> googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1631125303402-0'); }); -->by John Goddard
The second consecutive 30-0 red wash of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) should be of great concern to not only party members, but also all Barbadians who cherish our two party democracy.
The question which should occupy our attention is why this wholesale rejection of a party which has contributed so much to the development of Barbados? In this article, I propose to outline some of the factors which I think led to the DLP’s massive defeat.
Leadership has been touted as the single greatest difference between the two major parties. There is no doubt that Ms Mottley is more charismatic and experienced than Ms Depeiza, but those advantages were magnified because of the limited support given to the DLP President by leading members of her party.
And I do not mean the pre-election challenge to her presidency by the Rev. Guy Hewitt. There is nothing wrong with challenges for positions in an organisation. However, after a contest of this nature, the losers should accept the result and work together for the good of the organisation.
The problem with the DLP was that some of those who felt aggrieved by the outcome of the presidential election offered very little or no assistance to the party in the election campaign of 2022. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that some canvassed against their party, particularly in St. Lucy and St. John.
In addition we had the spectacle of one of the once leading lights of the party highlighting the advantages of Ms Mottley, just a few days before the elections.
What could have been his motive?
There was much that could be said about Ms Depeiza’s qualification for leadership that the seniors could have emphasised. She is bright, articulate, highly ethical and clearly has a vision.
The problem in these post-colonial, plantation structured societies is that a leader is seen like the old massa who bullied those under him. In short, leadership is equated to bossism. There is, therefore, no room for someone who believes in empowering those he/she leads.
Also, senior candidates did very little on platforms to convince the public that they were fully behind Ms Depeiza as leader of the party. This led even supporters to ask the question: who would be the Prime Minister if the Democratic Labour Party won the elections?
Such uncertainty was bound to dampen enthusiasm. It also provided the Barbados Labour Party with a stick to flog the Dems, and speaker after speaker administered blows using this weapon.
While on the issue of the participation of the elders of the party. I am one of the few people who do not accept that the appearance of Mr Freundel Stuart on the platform in St. Michael South played a major role in the defeat of the DLP.
The media and other critics ignored the substance of his speech and focussed attention on the few words which described the period 2008 -2018 as “glorious years”.
This is the kind of sub-standard level of analysis that we have sunk to. If persons who had planned to vote for the DLP changed their minds after hearing the words quoted, then we are in a sad state.
Another glaring weakness was the failure of most of the experienced former parliamentarians to mentor the new, but gifted candidates. These “newbies” did not have enough experience in organising campaigns for a General Election.
From all reports, evidence of this was seen on the ground on the day of the election. A candidate might be able to encourage electors to vote, but unless he/she is able to mobilise transport etc to get them to the polls, success will be limited. Why were so few former ministers active in supporting promising candidates?
What appeared to the public to be last minute decisions by Dr. David Estwick and Mr Michael Lashley to run again hurt their chances of winning. By not declaring their intentions earlier, the two stalwarts created doubt among constituents. Also, they did not give themselves enough time to
properly canvas.
There is no doubt that the DLP did not have enough financial resources to mount an effective campaign. The BLP, on the other hand, clearly suffered no shortage of money. The time has come for campaign finance laws to be implemented, so that money does not give any party an unfair advantage over the other parties contesting the elections.
Finally, the Dems paid the price for government being able to call elections at its whim and fancy. It is in the interest of our democracy to have fixed election periods to allow all contestants to start on a level playing field.
In the 2022 elections, it was obvious that not many of the DLP candidates were able to adequately canvas their constituencies.
John Goddard, retired, but always an educator.
