Leader’s mindset determines elective dictatorship – Keith Mitchell
Published:Sunday | February 6, 2022 | 12:09 AM
As Dr Keith Mitchell, the Grenadian prime minister, reflected on the results of the recent general election in Barbados, he couldn’t help but contemplate what it could mean for democracy in the sister island.
A highly experienced politician and leader of a country that has had its fair share of political turmoil and concerns about democracy and personal freedoms, Mitchell also considered the fact that in the Westminster system of government, a leader who is so disposed doesn’t need a clean sweep to practise autocracy.
Since Mia Mottley, the Barbados prime minister and Barbados Labour Party (BLP) leader, secured a second straight 30-0 sweep of the polls in the January 19 election – having first pulled off the seemingly impossible feat in May 2018 – many, both at home and abroad, have worried that absolute power could drive her towards dictatorship.
Mottley has sought to calm nerves by promising she would become her government’s “chief opposition when necessary” and insisting the party that secured the second highest number of votes – the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) – should consider accepting the two Senate seats which the opposition leader would have appointed, had there been an opposition. The DLP rejected the offer, saying it’s not Mottley’s to give.
Mitchell agrees there’s reason to be concerned about the possible impact on democracy of such a sweeping result, but only to a point.
“I think it’s a legitimate issue and concern for democratically minded individuals to be concerned of a balance in power structure. Theoretically, that’s realistic and understandable,” the Grenadian prime minister told The Sunday Gleaner.
“But don’t forget, under our parliamentary system, even with an opposition, if you have a leadership that’s intent on doing what it wants, it still does it, and we have seen that happen over the years. So, it boils down to the persons that you have given responsibility to lead. If I have a mindset of treating people as I wish, the authority is given by them to me, even if I have less than a full mandate, I am going to find ways to do it. And I will get people in the system compromised enough to do what I want done.”
A former captain of the Grenada cricket team, Mitchell loves to use cricket analogies. And in discussing this issue, he spoke about batting in his crease. But the former spinner has batted on this wicket before and knows better than most how the pitch is likely to behave.
In an early election which he called in January 1999, his New National Party (NNP) won all 15 seats at stake while securing a second straight term. After the NNP was defeated in 2008, it regained power with a crushing victory in the February 2013 general election, winning all 15 parliamentary seats for a second time, before making it somewhat routine in 2018 by retaining all the seats.
In the early days of his premiership, Mitchell was often painted by the opposition as a dictator, an image he has since successfully shed by governing in an open, transparent and inclusive manner, he contended.
“Over the years, because of the way I have operated and governed, and because the way the government has operated, even with a total mandate, that label has not stuck. In fact, it is not used again, I don’t hear it,” the country’s longest serving leader shared.
“If you want to know a man or woman, the only time you can really judge that person, give them some power. That is when you get to see the true individual, … so it’s about the individual. So I think the responsibility is on those of us who have been given that sort of strong mandate from the people to demonstrate to them that it has not changed us, it has not caused us to abuse the power that we have, and that we respect people.”
ALL-TOO-FAMILIAR
An abuse of power is precisely the accusation that was levelled against Mottley during the campaign, including by Lucille Moe, a former member of Mottley’s Cabinet and a friend of 50 years who switched allegiance and worked as a DLP strategist in this year’s election.
“Regrettably, Mia has changed; she is not handling the power like you thought she would have,” Moe told local media mere days before the poll. “I mean, I was so excited three and a half years ago when she won, but she has become, to such a point, dictatorial in her style of politics. She is autocratic and she does not allow anyone to have any kind of view or opinion; everybody must be in the Mia Mottley choir.”
Clearly, this line of attack failed spectacularly. However, there continues to be a segment of the political divide who believes the country could become an elective dictatorship.
It’s a term coined by the former British politician and Conservative MP, Lord Hailsham, in 1976, to describe the extent to which the Cabinet controlled the parliament, arguing that in the UK political system, when elected, a government can take whatever actions it wants without effective scrutiny.
Of particular concern for Hailsham was the increasing control of parliament by the executive, the emaciation of the opposition, and the decreasing influence of the backbench.
It’s an all-too-familiar problem in small jurisdictions like those in the Caribbean, where there are a limited number of parliamentary seats, observed Bernard Wiltshire, a British trained barrister and former attorney general of Dominica.
According to Wiltshire, checks and balances are being destroyed by the appointment to the Cabinet of virtually every elected member of the governing party.
“The problem arises where the party system makes loyalty to party much greater than loyalty to country and in small jurisdictions it becomes much more difficult,” Wiltshire told The Sunday Gleaner. “What you’re talking about is that the executive has a majority over the parliament, so the Cabinet controls the parliament completely. So there is no possible chance of the parliament ever being able to act independently of the Cabinet. That is what you call elective dictatorship.”
OPEN AND HUMBLE
However, Dr Tennyson Joseph, senior lecturer in political science at The University of the West Indies, argues that the absence of an official opposition does not mean democracy is threatened or dead.
Joseph contended that civil society, including the media, the universities, the trade union movement and the general public, must play a critical role in maintaining democracy.
“It doesn’t necessarily mean that no opposition equals no democracy or bad governance or poor democratic procedure. Similarly, you may have a parliament that is close but then the life of the country is dead, and, therefore, there is no democracy. So, it really depends on the way civil society constitutes itself,” the St Lucian political scientist told The Sunday Gleaner. “Democracy is not necessarily dead because there is no opposition.”
Back in 2016, three years after securing his second clean sweep, Mitchell proposed a series of changes to the Constitution, one of which would have guaranteed a leader of the opposition even if one party wins all the parliamentary seats. It was rejected by voters.
Now approaching the end of a third single-party parliamentary term, the Grenadian leader insisted that the best way to alleviate fears about elective dictatorship is to be open and humble.
“Humility sometimes brings you comfort and satisfaction. It is difficult to associate arrogance and dictatorial tendencies with an individual who has demonstrated humility,” reasoned the prime minister. “That’s the key. That will be our legacy.”