by ALBERT BRANDFORD,Political Correspondent

When a government is in trouble, an opposition party's main task is not to be unelectable.

– Peter Kellner, president of polling organisation YouGov, quoted in TIME of September 22.

KELLNER WAS COMMENTING on the new Conservative Party leader in England, David Cameron, who, before the global financial meltdown that gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a new lease on life, had seemed almost certain to form the next government.

"One of the things Cameron has understood better than his predecessors is that when people form judgements about politicians and parties, it's on the whole not a judgement about their policies, it's a judgement about what sort of people and what sort of party they are."

A few weeks ago, the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) used its 70th annual conference to, I think, begin the formal process of accepting that it is now in opposition after 14 years in office.

One of the comments that struck me from the new political leader Mia Mottley was her call for the BLP to renew the people's trust in those who serve.

"The way to do so," she suggested, "is by helping and working with people in areas that matter most to them – and not just what we see as important."

Outline of speech

In an attempt to assess the performance of the Opposition BLP ten months into the term of the new Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government, and to speculate on its possible forward thrust, it was fortuitous that I should come across the outline of a speech prepared by Prime Minister David Thompson when he was in Opposition – though not Opposition leader at the time.

It was prepared in January 2004 for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentary Forum, and entitled How should Oppositions Oppose?.

In the speech, Thompson noted that an Opposition is "constructive" when it does its job of keeping the government on its toes, demands accountability, provides representation, and undertakes its core parliamentary duties.

Notwithstanding the criteria outlined above, the notion that an opposition is constructive depends largely on who is doing the assessment.

A government or its supporters may deem the opposition constructive if it agrees with the government in the national interest.

Thompson, however, suggested that "no such obligation to agree with the Government in the national interest exists either legally or morally because there is no clear definition of the national interest that can transcend the cut and thrust of the adversarial system practised in most Commonwealth countries".

I found this an interesting observation in light of the response of the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) to a criticism that it left four per cent on the table in the recent wages and salaries agreement for public workers.

What we saw was a trade union, which is expected to be even more adversarial than an opposition party in settling wages and salaries, being able to draw the "national interest" card within two attempts at negotiation.

On the other hand, speaking in the "national interest" on concerns about the cost of living, Opposition leader Mottley was strident in her criticism of the changes to the energy pricing policy by the Thompson Administration.

The previous administration had subsidised diesel prices on the grounds that diesel was used predominantly to fuel business vehicles and in machinery and equipment.

Their argument was that increases in diesel prices would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices – thus the reason for subsidising diesel.

So, we can see that in two very different situations, the "national interest" was used to restrict wages for workers, especially at the bottom, and to counter Government's increases in fuel prices that pushed up the cost of living.

It gives one a clearer understanding of Thompson's comment that there was no clear definition of the "national interest" – it is all to do with perspective.

In the circumstances the most appropriate assessment of the Opposition, in particular its leader, may be one that is forward-looking.

And since "change" is the new political buzzword brought to light by Barack Obama in 2007, and subsequently embraced and popularised here in the last election by the DLP, the question is: What changes can we reasonably expect from Mottley?

There is already evidence that more females may constitute the political team under her. In this small society, it is not unusual to hear rumours about the thinking of our political figures, and in particular, the leaders.

It was with some deliberate haste that Santia Bradshaw was nominated to fill the void left by Hammie Lashley's departure to the ranks of the independent democrats.

The move may also be seen in the context of promoting the involvement of the youth in the political process, especially those regarded as "progressive", not only in their profession but their personal acceptance of images once perceived to be protests against the system.

Mainstream

Ironically, Mottley's image is being reconditioned to reflect the mainstream in an attempt to conform to the social norms apparently expected on the assumption of leadership.

We should not underestimate the importance of image in politics; it is that thing which gains acceptance even without the spoken word.

It has always been my position – since I began writing these commentaries – that the print media ought to be the companion of the Parliamentary Opposition, and none moreso than the leader.

This was particularly evident during the last election.

Surprisingly, the behaviour of the new Government towards the NATION newspaper cries out for examination. It must be obvious to all that the DLP is not making its column available to the paper now that it is in office.

This would have been unheard of when the DLP was seeking exposure for its message and messengers in Opposition.

Humility

But such is the nature of politics that attitudes and behaviours of politicians and political institutions can change with an "X".

Humbly, to that "X" the politician must return.

Looking forward, we must hope that the Opposition, under the leadership of a woman, will bring some much needed humility to politics – it is a quality whose time has come.

Perhaps, though, the biggest change may come in the way in which the constituency interests are promoted.

There is no doubt that as the country goes forward, and especially if the economy tightens, that political concerns could become more parochial as they become more "bread and butter" issues.

The Opposition leader also has one of the most potent weapons in the political armoury to fight for transparency and accountability: the Joint Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Concerns about the operations of the proposed constituency councils can be scrutinised as part of the mandate of that committee.

The similarities, and the differences, in leadership offer an interesting battle as the two major parties fight for the support of the youth, women and traditionalists – those who want to keep the Queen vs the Governor-General, keep liberal behaviour in the closet, and forget the integration of the region.

In this sense Barbados is delicately poised, not only in terms of the economy but the social issues, and it is yet to resolve its political structure.

The next election may really be a fight for the soul of the country.

albertbrandford@nationnews.com