By Emmanuel Joseph
Leading political observers have slammed the Democratic Labour Party – which led this country to Independence in 1966 – for opting out of participation in the nation’s 57th Independence anniversary celebrations and the second birthday of republican status.
The decision, branded “silly”, a “red herring” and a “misuse of time” came from political scholars Professor Don Marshall, Dr Kristina Hinds and Peter Wickham, in separate interviews with Barbados TODAY, after the party’s president Dr Ronnie Yearwood delivered a three-page letter to Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s office at Government Headquarters.
In the letter, Yearwood expressed the party’s appreciation for the invitation but conveyed that it was “with a heavy heart that we must respectfully decline your invitation to attend this momentous event”. The rejection, as outlined by Yearwood, was not taken lightly and was grounded in the party’s commitment to respecting the will of the Barbadian people.
Declaring that the DLP had evaluated the circumstances surrounding Barbados’ shift to a parliamentary Republic, Dr Yearwood said his party was concerned about perceived attempts to rebrand Independence Day as Republic Day.
“Our attendance at this event would be perceived as an endorsement of a process that, in our assessment, falls short of the democratic standards that we hold dear. It is our duty as responsible and right-thinking Barbadians to give due regard to the voice of the people and their concerns, and champion the safeguarding of democracy wherever it may be threatened,” Yearwood wrote.
Professor Marshall, Director of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) at the UWI, said he was “stunned” by the response of the DLP to the government’s invitation.
“The letter clearly states that it’s an invitation to the 57th anniversary of Independence and the second anniversary of republican status. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging our Independence while also acknowledging that on this same day two years ago, we also completed the process of becoming a Republic.”
He suggested that while one can understand the party’s objection on the grounds that “there have been stealth attempts in their view to replace Independence Day with Republic Day, that’s a red herring in the rejection of this invitation because the invitation makes no pretence of trying to substitute one with the other”.
Professor Marshall also pointed out that the DLP’s letter acknowledges that both events are important, adding that any right-thinking Barbadian would interpret the reference to the two celebrations as fact rather than an alteration of history in any way.
“I am just stunned that with all that is happening in Barbados and the fact that the world is ‘on fire’ that the DLP could respond in such a way to an invitation to an event in which the country is charting a new path in its history and development,” he said.
Dr Hinds, who heads the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill Campus, suggested that the DLP leader could have better utilised his time to address more pressing national issues. While understanding his concerns, she questioned the necessity of a three-page letter in response to a decision not to attend the annual Independence Day Parade.
“I don’t think that we can assume because an invitation says that on Independence Day two years ago Barbados became a Republic is any affront to democracy,” Hinds told Barbados TODAY. “I think that there are probably other issues that the DLP might be better served by concentrating their energies on; other serious national issues. I am not saying that [any] decision to change the name of Independence Day to something else is not serious, but I am not clear that that is what is happening. But I am clear that there are a lot of other serious things that are happening in Barbados that people might prefer to hear the DLP taking a very strong position on.”
She added: “If the DLP does not want to attend the Independence Day Parade, they do not have to, but to pen a three-page letter about not attending the Independence Parade is, to me, likely a misuse of time.”
Regional pollster Wickham, meanwhile, said: “Quite frankly, this approach of Yearwood and the DLP is bordering on silly as it sets the stage for an annual political drama at a time when we should be celebrating our achievements as a nation.”
He described Yearwood’s open letter as a continuation of the DLP’s campaign to undermine the celebration of progress to a Republic, a status he contended the party has never been enthusiastic about.
“It seems clear that the DLP believes that the celebration of our Republic, undermines our celebration of Independence and moreover that they are in a competitive battle with the BLP over one versus the other; and this is the basis of my fundamental disagreement with Yearwood,” Wickham told Barbados TODAY.
“I have always contended that becoming a Republic is a natural evolution of the Independence movement and jointly this occasion provides a unique opportunity for an expression of national unity that will now be lost.”
While he acknowledged Yearwood’s campaign to resist the rebranding of November 30 as National Day, Wickham said the DLP “also needs to understand that success in that campaign means that we will need to continue celebrating both [Independence Day and Republic Day] on the same day which he also now appears to be resisting”.
emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb
