'To the manor born' and 'lights out'...

I decided to split my analysis into several posts for the sake of not making it too long and boring. :)

So what does this mean for the two political leaders? I was planning to blog about this before the elections but there were so many other things to write about. No matter what happened, it was definitely going to be 'lights out' for someone. Their political futures hinged on this election.

For David Thompson, I guess it shows that he really is 'to the manor born'. I will confess, I have always been slightly puzzled by the insistence of many die-hard Dems that Thompson was 'meant' to be Prime Minister. I always felt there was something elitist in it, similar to sentiments on the Bees' side about Mia Mottley being meant for power. This concept we have in the Caribbean that certain people (usually upper middle class, went to the right schools, of the 'right' family and red or brown skinned - e.g. Golding, Gonsalves, Anthony of recent vintage, Michael Manley, Tom Adams of older vintage) bothers me a bit.

Anyhow, he has certainly had to work hard (even harder than expected in the end - 14 years out of power remember) for his destiny (as did Bruce Golding, another 'to the manor born' I have had ambivalent feelings about) so I would never grudge the man his victory. So this is the fulfillment of a long-held ambition, for while it seems like Thompson has been around forever (he has been an MP since I moved to Barbados and I was only 4 then) he is actually only in his very early 50s (or is it younger? I think I read 46 years old the other day but that seems too young.

For the Opposition BLP now and particularly former PM Arthur - what of them? I found it most fascinating last night that as Arthur gave his concession speech with deputy leader Mia Mottley vigilant right beside him, he would not indicate whether he would be the Opposition leader.

There have been signs and rumours of tension in the BLP camp in recent times, with things looking like Mia Mottley was being shunted aside. Clearly, since the Arthurian leadership aura did not extend to the rest of the party to give them victory this time (as it did in 2003 and DEFINITELY in 1999) he is no longer useful to the party. Now that they no longer have to be deferential I think those in her camp will now say it is her time. The only question to my mind is - will it be public, protracted and bitter like the Dems' leadership fight was? Or will it be smooth so as to maintain the semblance of unity? Judging from the tone of Arthur's comments, I think he is ready to step aside quietly. He is already 58 - going on 59 and it would be impractical for him to continue any further. If he led the BLP into the next election, he would be 63 or 64! Since Independence, no political leader in Barbados in their 60s has ever led their party into power and lived long enough to savour the victory. Barrow was 67 when he led the Dems to victory in 87 but he did not last long the last time. Running Barbados is stressful, yes! We like our politicians young enough to keep up.

It will also force the party to restructure. I had read a rather compelling (if obviously partisan) analysis of the Trinidad elections a few months ago by Hartley Henry and how Manning took the chance there of splitting his party by tossing out a number of incumbent politicians to get a whole new party. Henry had argued then that Arthur should have tossed out some of the dross in his party and refreshed it (though Henry would clearly have had a conniption fit if this had actually worked for the Bees). There were certain candidates who were weak for the Bees and the writing was on the wall for them long time. So it is time to look for newer, better and perhaps younger.

As to the actual Opposition itself now - while it is strong enough in numbers, I am not too certain of the substance of it. Five of the presumed ten were essentially back-benchers in the last administration. They lost nine MPs who had been ministers. It is interesting that those thought most capable are those that lost most heavily. The thing is, many of these Opposition MPs are not folks who have been used to speaking up much, especially in recent times. Cynthia is a good, grassroots woman but not a stellar debater, Hammie La has been very quiet in recent times since he was removed from his Ministerial post, as has Ronald Toppin and George Payne for the last many years. Duguid was a back bencher. Still, the onus cannot be left on only the other four immediate past ministers to speak up and bring the fight. It will be interesting to see how that is dealt with.