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.

My deep concern is for the people. In that respect, the electorate is unlikely to be the net beneficiary of the opportunity to have an opposition voice. Whilst the electorate has cried out for that Constitutional requirement, it hasn’t happened on fertile ground ripe for political growth and building trust; it has happened on unstable ground in which a party that has been in the political wilderness for six years, is still busy fighting against its own success – publicly! When looked at through that prism, crossing the floor looked good, but was always going to bring small reward with greater risk.

If you conclude, as I do, that those numbers reflect the fact that the electorate had no competitive alternatives to vote for, then the next question is, what about 2027? The unconstitutionality of that potential reality is not only arguable, it is tangible. Moreover, it would bring untold risks to national stability in matters of peace, law & order, freedom of expression, transparency and accountability, to name just a few. Our present political reality has already created an unstable environment; by that I mean, it has disrupted constitutional principles (which are still unresolved in my opinion), disturbed the hearts of the electorate, created strife, and, all but destroyed trust and confidence.

Barbados does not benefit from this state of affairs – yet still, the electorate has to keep drinking from the same bitter cup of distrust, uncertainty and fear of the future. I believe we all want to see Barbados elevated to new heights across the whole spectrum of government activity. I know Barbados is not easy. Barbados is not at peace. Barbados is in debt. Barbados has economic problems. Barbados has health care problems, crime problems, welfare state problems, food and water security problems, infrastructure problems, education problems, employment problems; all of which keep being regurgitated and which 30 or 40 years of governance has left unsolved.

The last generation of leadership has created significant challenges for the next two generations of Barbadian life. As I see it, that’s the Barbadian reality. For now! It’s a reality which we have no choice but to face together. But it can and must change. Barbadians want a prosperous life, a better future for their children, the ability to live comfortably into retirement, parents want to feel they can support a family and make more elaborate choices at the supermarket. But the level of anxiety in the nation is palpable. Looking toward the generations of our grandchildren and their children, Barbadians know we face serious problems and we need serious people to solve them. So, quite apart from certain DLP members having no confidence in Dr Yearwood perhaps, as a party, they would do well to consider the extent to which any constituent has any confidence in them to tackle the serious issues Barbados faces after this, and to act accordingly. If that motion succeeds, who benefits? We love our country, but it’s the people that suffer when politicians get it wrong. I’m passionate about Barbados. I want to exhort Barbadians to lift up their eyes to the hills, keep believing in the future, and stay strong. I believe “Better will come”!

Steve Prescott