EDITORIAL

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.” Voltaire

We do not at all subscribe to the view, now being apparently espoused by some of the more rabid supporters of the governing Barbados Labour Party [BLP] administration, that the voices of any of the members of the last Democratic Labour Party [DLP] Cabinet ought not to be heard in public critical analysis of the recent budgetary proposals from the Honourable Prime Minister, Ms Mia Mottley. Nor, for that matter, do we consider that a condition precedent to the voicing of any such opinion should be a public acknowledgement of regret on its part or the offer of a mea culpa for its handling of the economy during its latest tenure.

In our view, the first is constrained by the tenets of our democracy that guarantee the fundamental right of every person to express a political opinion or to indulge in political speech. The second, in our assessment, has already been actualised by the electorate in its blanket rejection of the party’s slate of candidates in the recent general election.

Both the DLP’s significant historical contributions to national development and its popular appeal (though now substantially reduced) entitle it to serve as a prominent voice in local socio-economic initiatives and it would be churlish in the extreme for any to seek to deny the party that right. Indeed, we take some support for our view from the initial proposal from Ms Mottley who, in the early days following the election result, suggested a constitutional amendment to enable the party to nominate two senators to the Upper Chamber despite the incapacity of any of its members to act as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly. The subsequent appointment of Bishop Joseph Atherley as Opposition leader rendered this impracticable.

Having stated these matters, the question at caption still begs asking, what is the optimal course of action for this once great party, its status now reduced, as one political analyst has put it, to that of a pressure group?

As we see it, the party should not allow itself to be cowed into silence. Ironically, it may very well have been an inexplicable reticence when the situation demanded public communication that contributed substantially to its present predicament. Last week’s press conference that engendered the reactions we noted earlier was a necessary start to the party’s resurgence in the popular imagination. Concomitantly, the party should choose with prudence the matters on which it wishes to engage. After all, it remains the best politically endowed of those organisations, other than the party in office, that chose to court the favour of the electorate in last month’s referendum.

Matters of economic policy, the aptness of legislative initiatives and social reforms present ready areas for informed comment and the party possesses ample resources to enable it to provide intelligent alternatives to official prescriptions.

At a more organic level, the DLP must move swiftly to constitute its new executive, mindful always that electoral rejection does not signify an inability to contribute at the organisational level. At the same time, it is our unsolicited opinion that the political leadership of the reformed party should not be perceived as simply a replica of the Cabinet so overwhelmingly obliterated by the electorate on May 25. The founding fathers of our nation never contemplated that Barbados should be a “one-party state” and the soonest rebirth of a creditable alternative to the current administration should ensure a healthier democracy.