Editorial: A rhetorical question?

Having regard to the twin contexts in which the question was posed, during the course of the Astor B Watts lunchtime lecture at the headquarters of the Democratic Labour Party, it was perhaps nothing more than rhetorical, that is, asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion rather than intended to elicit a reply. It might even be likened to one of those questions posed by the ancient Romans where the first word used (“num” or “nonne”) suggested the answer no and yes respectively. We refer to the question posed by the political analyst, Ms Maureen Holder, that was the subject of a headline in last Tuesday’s edition of The Barbados Advocate, “Is Barbados ready for a female Prime Minister?” According to the report, Ms Holder made it clear that while she has no difficulty with Barbados having a female Prime Minister, she found it strange that there has not been a national debate concerning the issue in Barbados.

Of course, by critiquing the question, we are in no way predicting that there will be or even suggesting that there ought to be a local female Prime Minister, but if Barbados is not ready for such a personage, the question would reasonably beg asking, what is so wrong with us that we should even abide the question? Comparisons may indeed be odious but nations such as Israel, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka have all had female Prime Ministers without consternation and, if we were required to seek examples of a more regional nature, Dominica, Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica clearly have had no difficulty with the notion. Why then should we need a national debate on what would appear at first blush to be such a trite matter?

Indeed, we have never as a nation considered that any office is closed to an individual on account of his or her gender. We were among the first in the region to have a resident female representative of the Head of State in Dame Nita Barrow and we have just established Dame Sandra Mason as our second. In terms of protocol, though not politically, this post outranks that of Prime Minister and there has never been any suggestion that the appointments should be subject to public debate. Nor have we been troubled, seemingly, by females being appointed to high profile public offices such as Registrar of the Supreme Court, Chief Medical Officer, Solicitor General, Ministers of State and, more latterly, Director of Public Prosecutions.

In this connection, it confounds us to think of a single relevant quality that most would desire in a Prime Minister or any other public officer that should be inherent in a male but yet be invariably absent in a female.

We consider that a public debate on this issue would not only be embarrassing to us as a developing nation that is wedded constitutionally to equality of the sexes but also wasteful, given the imminence of a general election where one of the main parties in the contest is led by a woman. Might it be that this is the genesis of the question? If so, it will soon be answered by the electorate. At least for the next five years anyway.