Deep Existential Crisis Looms for DLP Following 69th Annual Conference, Says Political Expert

Reflecting on the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) 69th annual conference, held August 23-25, 2024, Dr Tennyson Joseph, associate professor of political science at North Carolina Central University, surmised that the party “faces a deep existential crisis and even possible extinction.”

Having lost a sister in my childhood and father as a teen, that, coupled with pastoral experience, has made me familiar with death. The DLP annual conference conveyed a foreboding that we may be at the beginning of the end. Notwithstanding a belief in miracles, sometimes we hold to false hope as with Cricket West Indies; the grave wounds inflicted by island insularity and boardroom shenanigans appear terminal for our regional game.

BLP Influences

There are those in the DLP who view Dr Ronnie Yearwood and Comrade Leader Ralph Thorne with suspicion. They perceive that, being part of the vanquishing of the DLP in 2018, their inveigling is simply a result of the political axe they both seek to personally grind with Ms Mottley. However, I believe that all Barbadians, regardless of history, should be allowed to join any party once they subscribe to the philosophy of the institution and abide by its constitution, rules, and procedures.

However, for many there remains the question of motive. Some feel their political transmutation may be another BLP ploy, allowing the latter to domineer the goings-on at George Street as they do with the media, private sector, trade unions, civil service, and other key actors. The current crisis in the DLP allows the BLP, which remains in election mode, to advance ‘Mottleyism’ akin to Thatcherism, except mired in populism rather than rooted in ideology. As exemplified in the attempt to replace Independence Day with Republic Day, therein Barrow with Mottley, ego runs amok.

The concerns raised by Mr Thorne on the conduct of the Barbados Police Service to impartially uphold law and order last weekend were legitimate, particularly when juxtaposed to the actions in Deacons on Good Friday 2021. The recent shooting of a 12-year-old girl by a masked gunman in Silver Hill, typifies the failings of this government, not only to deal with crime and violence but the many social and economic ills facing our nation, including securing a future for our children and children’s children.

I never expected that the wanton violence that I experienced while living in Jamaica would reach our shores.

DLP Leadership

That being said, I believe generally that we are individually responsible for our successes and failures. As long as people principally blame others for why they aren’t where they feel they should be, they remained trapped. A monumental challenge to the DLP is its prevailing leadership style. Whereas the BLP was early on weaned off the cult of personality through a multiplicity of leaders: Grantley Adams, Hugh Cummins, Bree St John, and Tom Adams, the DLP was fashioned around Errol Barrow.

Barrow’s typification of what Prof Carl Stone defined as a maximum leader became the DLP’s default leadership trait. Erskine Sandiford tried unsuccessfully to replicate this style, leading to the formation of the National Democratic Party (NDP) under Dr Richie Haynes, and consequentially the parliamentary ‘no confidence’ vote. David Thompson, mimicking his predecessors, neglected the opportunity to reintegrate the NDP, formed primarily of DLP members and supporters, and subsequently, aided by Owen Arthur’s ‘politics of inclusion,’ oversaw an exodus of a number of future leaders to the BLP.

DLP Leadership Options

My perception of Dr Yearwood’s leadership competencies plummeted last weekend. The conduct by Mr Steve Blackett in both action and word confirmed the Peter principle that persons ‘rise to the level of their incompetence.’ But I expected better from Dr Yearwood. His illegitimate presence at George Street and association with those reputed to have commandeered the DLP’s assets, raises serious questions about political acumen and ethics.

There are three things I have complete and utter disdain for: hypocrisy, dishonesty, and tyranny. Notwithstanding the braying for justice, how could those supporting Messrs Yearwood and Blackett expect justice when they sought to prove that ‘might is right.’ A pervasive threat to democracy is a tyranny of the majority, that is, those who seek to use force or fraud to win elections or carry motions, as was attempted last Saturday.

The renegade group in support of Messrs Yearwood and Blackett hijacked the annual conference and attempted to reinstate these expelled members without due process. Their actions, in contravention of the party’s constitution and procedures, and hugely disruptive, warranted their exclusion until they can guarantee that they can act in a proper and dignified manner.

I commend Mr Thorne as DLP Leader, for seeking to assemble a seemingly inclusive team. But some of his choices may confirm the suspicion that grey forces, relics of a recently vanquished past, are operating in the shadows. There remains the unresolved issue of the presidency. Should Mr Thorne seek this for himself, it could reinforce the perception that actions against Messrs Yearwood and Blackett were Machiavellian in nature. But if not him, then who?

Five Phases of Party Decline

In seeking to understand the current state of the DLP, the Five Phases of Party Decline: Blinded, Inaction, Faulty action, Crisis, and Disintegration developed by Josef Lentsch, a political contributor to The Economist and Financial Times is useful.

Five phases of the party decline curve

Phase 1: Blinded: In the first phase, things might not be looking up for the party, but are not particularly down either. The trend is stable. Problems, even any electoral underperformances, are largely attributed to be aberrations. A few lone voices call for reform and innovation, but mostly behind closed doors.

2: Inaction: In the second phase, challenges may be identified, but are not addressed. Performance-wise, the party is still doing okay; results are mixed, and ‘it could be worse.’ In this phase, leaders see risk to corrective action and aware that conflict may accompany change, choose to maintain the status quo. The party goes from stagnation into slow decline.

3: Faulty action: Over time, internal and external pressures increase; the kettle starts to boil. Party leadership seems spurred into action. On the surface things seem to be happening but this is essentially ‘participation theatre,’ allowing disgruntled members and activists to vent without any meaningful change. Critics are listened to but not heard. Cynicism rises and morale plummets. The party enters free fall.

4: Crisis: Distress becomes visible. Substantial problems become public and cannot be ignored or argued away. Painful defeats at the polls are complemented by bad internal choices. Key persons begin to leave and there is now open critique from loyal stalwarts. Internal conflicts increasingly consume time and energy, which the media reports with relish. Leadership faces an increasing loss of credibility. Donations begin to dry up. Bunker mentality ensues. Instead of opening itself up, the leadership circle seals itself off by ‘closing ranks.’

5: Disintegration: The party centre cannot hold and begins to break apart. The parliamentary party may start fighting with the central office. Local branches may disassociate themselves. Civil war ensues. Opinion leaders publicly declare the party to be reeling; pundits call the situation ‘existential.’ Paranoia takes hold of leaders – the enemy is everywhere – ‘us versus them’ mentality is pervasive which can go as far as ‘if I go down, you all go down with me.’

It is now all about power, not policy or polity. Polls are plummeting. The heart of the party stops beating. In some cases, even at this stage, an emergency resuscitation (a political defibrillator) may prove successful. In other cases, it may be too late and the party carries on as a ‘zombie,’ ‘walking dead’ party, until it ultimately disintegrates.

Conclusion

Noting the disappearance of Eric Gairy’s Grenada United Labour Party and Eugenia Charles’ Dominica Freedom Party, Dr Joseph warns that, “If the DLP does not resolve its postelection leadership crisis at the quickest possible time, the possibility of its extinction is very great.” The DLP is at a crossroad and the crucial decisions that need to be taken have a timeline, but democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely.

If we delay a decision, the opportunity for resurrection may disappear forever with national consequences. For the DLP has not only been a beacon of democracy but the essential mechanism for social transformation in Barbados and the forging of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

There are those calling for a new political party to emerge, which I argue against as I believe that third parties struggle in the Caribbean. However, an assertion was made that it may not be a ‘third’ party that is being sought per se, but rather the emergence of a new, legitimate ‘second’ one.

May God bless and continue to guide Barbados and, particularly at this time, our democracy and the DLP.

Guy Hewitt, a former high commissioner, is a London-based social policy specialist and minister of religion.