Politics
The Implications of DLP Party Divisions and the Controversy Surrounding Cross-Flooring in Barbadian Politics
"DLP party divisions unfolding publicly with crossing the floor to DLP, raising questions of relevance and integrity. Opposition termed necessary but causing costs to party, electorate, and nation."
6 min read
Originally published by barbadostoday.bb (opens in new tab)
I‘ve been reflecting on this for a few weeks now and wrestling with my thoughts, trying to make sense of what is unfolding. We all love our country, right? And I think we all probably agree, it’s really disheartening to see DLP party divisions played out in front of our eyes. Crossing the floor to the DLP was an obvious sightline for any aspirational politician, and would inevitably be pursued, but it leaves the party holding a poisoned chalice. The cup looks great, but do you want to drink its contents?
That said, let’s be clear, no matter the view of its efficacy or potency within this Barbadian political context, it is good and right to have an opposition voice. It seems to me though, that for all the good an opposing voice is supposed to achieve, to get that voice has come at a cost (actual or possible); not only to the party, but also to the electorate and, ultimately, the nation.
The DLP are desperate to be relevant, in a political reality in which they are (or were, depending on your point of view) unelected. Some might argue that crossing the floor can’t change that reality; only a by-election would be definitive. Others might even question the integrity of politicians; those who were once members of the BLP, switching sides. However, now that the DLP together accepted Mr Thorne, an otherwise unelected party is the ultimate beneficiary; they have a toehold in both houses. But it seems to come with more risk than reward.
To put this in context, if I understand it correctly, the no-confidence motion is based on a letter of invitation that was addressed to both DLP leaders, received by Dr Yearwood, but was not passed on to Mr Thorne SC. And, this is what has created the turmoil? Well, ostensibly, a motion on that basis seems trifling. After all, Mr Reid does say “it is not anything that is life and death”. In which case, one has to ask, why present the motion in the first place?
Moreover, it has to be said, that what is being reported about the presentation of the motion – signatories not recognised as party members, names added without permission – is poor optics for a party trying to reinvent itself and become trusted and relevant.
That aside, whatever we think of Dr Yearwood’s leadership, he doesn’t deserve to be upstaged or undermined in such a manner and for such a reason as this. Dr Yearwood appeared to me, to be magnanimous (maybe unwisely) in accepting Mr Thorne into the arms of his once passionately held membership of the DLP. It can’t have been an easy decision. Neither will it have escaped the attention of many that inviting a “political” leader into an established political organisation that has an established party leader is politically and practically unmanageable – perhaps even suicidal!
Political leader? Party leader? It’s semantics. Either way, two into one does not go! Both persons will have ambitions to be Prime Minister. In these circumstances, the only regrettable but predictable outcome I could foresee was division and potentially a well disguised coup d’état. A costly outcome for the price of a seat in Parliament.
