Change is inevitable in any society, yet Barbadians need to reflect on the type of stability that has worked for the small island that punches way above its body weight. Questions have to be asked as we approach the campaign trail as to what extent Barbados has benefitted from astute leadership when almost in every other corner of the globe inclusive of CARICOM, socio-economic buoyancy and mature state development have not always been evident in the status quo of those countries. What has been the fundamental determinant that has allowed Barbados to blossom while others faltered?

This brief article attempts to share with Barbadians information that is relative to good governance and the securitisation of Barbados’ development. It shows why conscious reflection of history juxtaposed to contemporary circumstances is a better benchmark for decision-making than the spurious assumption that ‘winds of change’ is or can be a factor in the pursuit of serving this country. Leadership is vital for the continued successes of Barbados as a notable and stable liberal democracy.

Therefore, the upcoming elections must revolve around the frameworks of who will provide the vision and orientation to uplifting human capital, maximising social inclusion, demonstrating political acumen, engaging sound economic management, and who will peacefully transcend the type of judgement that is afforded towards leading masses of people with divergent views and interests under difficult circumstances. Barbados has already been the beneficiary of this type of leadership under Barrow, Adams, and now Arthur whose tenacity for success and outreach is unmatched by any other Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, it is by unravelling the maze of inputs and outputs by way of contributions from both major political parties that one can conclude the burgeoning effect through which leadership will be brought to the fore in the upcoming ‘Elections 2008’ and this is just as critical a factor for the voter to understand as it is for the candidates based upon the impact that leadership in the past and present has had on keeping Barbados as the leading developing nation in the world.

According to many social psychologists, the best exemplification of leadership demands a sense of devotion and loyalty between leaders and their followers. There is a high level of enthusiasm for the leader and her or his ideas which then encourages a willingness by followers to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the collective goals. One exceptional trait found among several of the most internationally renowned leaders is the ability to achieve outstanding levels of performance personally and from their followers, to the extent that results are usually of very lofty standards of excellence. There is no doubt that Prime Minister Owen Arthur has ascended to these heights of motivation, inclusion, performance, and general attraction to his followers as an outstanding leader.

How does David Thompson compare with Owen Arthur on the basis of what has been advanced here? While there is no intention to revert to unscientific data that has already been placed before the general public on the matter, this article simply suggests that early evidence depicts that Arthur easily measures up to the social psychologists’ comparative analyses while Thompson’s record of leadership suffers significantly due to past and present conflicts evidenced within and among the political party he now leads.

Indeed, as far back as 1988 mention was made of Thompson’s deficiencies as a leader although that position for which he was at the time judged surrounded the post of General-Secretary in the Democratic Labour Party. At that time, one could say that the death of Barrow sent a shockwave through the DLP and this culminated in a significant fight among leadership contenders and their subsequent exodus from that party. This continued into the 1990s and throughout this first decade of the 21st century.

It is not uncommon for fractures to elevate above the cause one is fighting, but good leadership demonstrates a strength of will that acts decisively in closing such fractures, one way or another to the extent that the larger group objectives are not compromised. The fact is that David Thompson whether as general-secretary or president of the Democratic Labour Party has been and continues to be a central and controversial figure that stands out like a sore thumb in terms of internal rifts and wrangling in that political party. Thompson has been unable to rectify several personality clashes originating from among his colleagues and these squabbles have often exploded into the public domain. Many fingers are already pointed at Thompson's ‘dictatorial’ style that is further lamentable due to genuine mistrust and class prejudices that are bearing down upon the decision-making process.

It is pitiful that Thompson was allowed to commandeer the leadership away from those more discerning and desrving in the DLP. In September 2001, Thompson remarkably told stalwarts of the DLP that "unfortunately, the party has not rallied to my leadership ... in the light of these experiences, I believe the party's best interest will be served if I relinquish the position of president and political leader." This fascinating show of cowardice is synonymous with Thompson's later pronouncements relating to running away from battles. It is an inherent trait to Thompson but one that is absent in the best of leaders.

Former parliamentarian, president, and senator of the Democratic Labour Party, Mr. Freundel Stuart, who is on record as having stated that “I do not intend to be party to any effort to reduce a Jubilee Conference ... to a bloody inter-personal battleground at worst, or a degrading political circus at best,” was quite despondent in Thompson’s contentious return to the helm of that party. Austin ‘Tom’ Clarke was moved to surmise “how Errol Barrow is sleeping during these tumultuous nights when the party [DLP] is in such disarray. They have squandered their legacy.” Another observer notes that “the inability of Thompson and Estwick to accommodate diverging views should send a strong message to all Barbadians.” These observations are repeatedly referred in the annals of Barbados’ political history and socio-political commentary thus serving as a crucial reminder about Thompson’s inability to effectively lead or gain respect from followers.

While the jury may still be out for some persons who would wish that the evidence suggest otherwise, a growing majority of Barbadians feel a sense of consolidation and now growth in the manner that Arthur embellishes the Office of Prime Minister. Owen Arthur is being vented among national followers as a statesman of the highest order and one whose intellect separates him from any challengers across the political divide. The Barbados Labour Party is resolute in the support of one outstanding son of the soil to be their leader unlike the consensus arrangements that incidentally occur from time to time within the DLP. The final and only verdict can be the fact that Owen Seymour Arthur is a leader extraordinaire and on this basis will gain the necessary support that ensures he remains the Prime Minister of this country into the foreseeable future.
Back To News