It is much safer to be feared than loved because . . . love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. – Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Whenever there was a need to discipline Cabinet ministers and parliamentarians, previous Prime Ministers have tended to act swiftly and decisively.
In the early 1980s Opposition Leader Errol Barrow fired his two Democratic Labour Party (DLP) senators because they voted in support of a Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Government bill to increase constituencies from 24 to 28.
Within days of John Connell and the late Dennis Hunte going against their party, Barrow dismissed the two from the Senate at a public political meeting as he made it clear that the DLP was not in favour of the increased number of constituencies.
Likewise in September 1983, Prime Minister Tom Adams fired Dr Don Blackman from his Cabinet ostensibly for going against his edict forbidding ministers from publicly expressing their disagreement with the party’s policies.
For those who may have forgotten, Blackman was a very popular minister who managed to build a strong political base for himself and the BLP in the St Michael East constituency. He was also one of the party’s leading platform speakers.
During Owen Arthur’s 14-year tenure there was the firing of George Payne and Liz Thompson from his Cabinet. In each case he made known his displeasure at their individual actions.
Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, on the other hand, indicated since last Saturday that “certain consequences will have to follow” if there was indeed an attempt to derail his Government. He was referring to the letter which was drafted on behalf of 11 DLP parliamentarians expressing their concerns about the leadership of the country.
That letter stated in part: “Against the backdrop of growing concern among supporters of the Government and our party, with respect to perceived weaknesses in our leadership of the country, and a sense of drift and inertia arising therefrom, we the undersigned elected members of the Parliamentary Group, seek an urgent audience with you to discuss matters of grave concern to us, as well as to chart a path forward for the retention of our party in Government.”
At the time of writing this article yesterday, Stuart had not carried out his promise to make heads roll over what has been characterized as a move by some of his colleagues to get rid of him.
Having decided to act on the reported dissatisfaction with his leadership, he has procrastinated. This delay is unfortunate and inadvertently supports the argument from Stuart’s detractors about his leadership style.
Stuart should have dealt with those he identifies as seeking to undermine his leadership by now.
Prime ministerial power is nearly absolute and should be swiftly and decisively used to remove with surgical precision any real or perceived threat within his regime.
The Prime Minister’s failure to take action to date is like a powerful cat having a small trembling mouse cornered but, instead of slaying the mouse, making him suffer the anxiety of not knowing when the final blow will come and how.
This inaction is unfortunate because it can have the effect of widening the rift in the DLP leadership.
It runs contrary, too, to the Prime Minister’s own concerns of the effect of the letter’s message on the party’s image.
He stressed his disappointment last Saturday, questioning how “we could be so reckless with our own goodwill to throw it away like that or to endanger it like that is a matter for regret”. Yet he has prolonged this puzzling situation by not acting decisively.
Much has been said by political scientists on Stuart now being in a better position to shape a Cabinet in his own image. I concur. However, the Prime Minister needs to act with urgency to demonstrate to all that he can be decisive when he needs to be.
Best wishes for the Yuletide season to all!
