In the context of serious Opposition politics, the recent repeated call for a change to the Barbados Labour Party’s (BLP) constitution by former Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley seems, if not ill-conceived, then certainly ill-timed and loaded with self-interest.
Its reintroduction comes at a time when the Government is under its greatest pressure to date, with regard to its health care policy, a persistent recession and unassured leadership.
The stated issues relate to the timing of Mottley’s suggestion which seems chosen more in an attempt to refocus the Opposition moreso than to maintain the focus on the Government.
The Barbados Labour Party’s annual conference is far away (in political years!) and this issue certainly cannot be a priority for the membership or the public at this time.
As I understand it, the proposed change is intended to give ordinary members of the party the right to vote within the institution. As it stands now, the annual conference of the BLP is a delegates’ conference, and by the way, so too is the annual conference of the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP).
It is through this mechanism that BLP leaders have been chosen in the past, including Mottley herself, without any pledge on her accession to reform the process then.
In theory, this suggests that each member at an annual delegates’ conference would be representing ten members from the branches.
Let us be clear: no politician wants change that goes against self-interest. So it must be concluded that Mottley expects to gain by having the ordinary members participate fully in the party’s decision-making, especially in its choice of leader. This view is confirmed by her statement: “I have the trust in you, the ordinary members of the BLP, to be able to make decisions in the interest of the party . . . .”
Indeed, she made it known that come October she would be seeking the chairmanship of the party, currently held by St Andrew MP George Payne, one of the so-called “Gang of Five” responsible for her ouster some months ago as Opposition Leader.
Her conceiving of such a move at this time is interesting and instructive because it is customary for the leadership of the two major political parties to fall into the hands of the political leaders on the approach of a general election.
In the context of her apparent desire to “heal” the BLP following the bruising battle with the Parliamentary Group, perhaps assuming the post of chairmanship demands that she meet with the new political leader Owen Arthur, since in her own words, “the only way I know to heal and build trust is when four eyes meet . . .”.
In another breath, Mottley said Barbados was crying out for leadership and her way to that leadership seems to be chairmanship of the BLP, first and foremost.
Now the chairmanship is derived from the membership which is currently not allowed to fully participate in the voting and therefore her proposed change to the constitution, if passed, would secure for her a wider mandate.
Given that Barbados needs leadership which on the current performance of the Government has to come from the Barbados Labour Party, unless perhaps the leadership of the DLP changes, it is only fitting that whoever leads the two major parties has the best chance of leading the country. The conception is that simple.
There is an irony, however, in Barbadian politics that has played itself out in the last five years in the two parties. In the DLP, the man who took the party into the 2003 general election lost the leadership around mid-term. In the BLP, the man who took the party into the 2008 general election returned to the leadership just after mid-term.
In each case, the political leadership is derived from within Parliament in accordance with the country’s constitution.
The ultimate post in political leadership rests squarely with the elected members of Parliament on both sides of the House with respect to the offices of Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
While it is possible to change a party’s constitution to allow for widespread participation of its members in determining the presidency or the chairmanship, it is virtually impossible in our current parliamentary democracy to secure such widespread participation in determining national leadership.
In the circumstances, Mottley’s proposed change to the BLP’s constitution must be seen more in the context of its timing than its ability to transform the party before the next general election.
In this sense, there has to be an element of self-interest, since the constitutional realities, especially at the national level, cannot be lost on the former attorney general.
Recently, Mottley said she was not in politics looking for friendships. This is a given, since politicians are not known to have genuine friendships with their colleagues.
So what is it then that gets politicians to focus? The answer is power. So what is power, you might ask?
The answer is that thing which allows the individual to have influence in the pursuit of self-interest. So what is ultimate power? The answer is being Prime Minister.
It was said by a very prominent local politician that all politicians who entered elective politics should have the ambition to become prime minister. While the observation may be somewhat exaggerated, there is no doubt that some politicians are in the game to satisfy that want – nothing less will suffice.
In the pursuit of such a want, it must be recognized that there is a collective want that exceeds that of any one individual; this collective want is formed by the loyal base of a party.
The major difference between the loyal base and that of the individual politician is that the former is prepared to suppress its self-interest once it senses an opportunity for victory.
The preferences of the loyal base would always reveal more than one potential leader but the desires of the loyal base would always see one political opponent.
It is in the context above that the recent comments of the former Opposition Leader seem, if not ill-conceived, then certainly ill-timed and loaded with self-interest.
