IT CAME as a shock to many political observers – and, no doubt, to supporters of the incumbent St Lucia Labour Party — that the party was recently voted out of office after serving a single term in office. This is understandable, since there has been in the Anglophone Caribbean a tradition of governments serving at least two terms. In fact, we have had instances wherein governments have been in office in excess of two decades. Some have argued that longevity in office breeds political excesses such as corruption, arrogance and complacency; while others have contended that, in our unique political and economic circumstances, it takes more time for policies and programmes to yield results. Since political parties are primarily concerned about remaining in power once they assume the reins of government, they are obviously less concerned about the impact of longevity, or lack thereof, on the wider political economy.

It is for this reason that they may have missed, in the region, a developing trend wherein parties have been kicked out of office after one term. Within the last year, this has occurred in four countries — Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and St Lucia. In the cases of St Lucia and Jamaica, the last three elections have all produced changes of government.

When one adds to the above scenario the fact that three other governments rule with razor thin majorities — in Guyana, Barbados and St Vincent and the Grenadines — it can be concluded that the region is witnessing a new political dynamic that may change its politics in the long run.

What are the underlying causes of this new phenomenon in Caribbean politics? While it may be too early to draw definitive conclusions in the absence of hard data, one may point to at least two possible factors. First, it seems that the electorates are less patient with governments which they perceive as not igniting any fundamental changes, especially in the economic realm.

In an era of relatively high unemployment, especially among the youth, and where low wages across the board abounds, citizens are more likely to evaluate governments from the standpoint of their material circumstances. This situation is compounded by the fact that many governments, because of subjective and objective factors, are not able to deliver on lofty campaign promises.

The second factor that may be triggering this rapid turnover of governments is that, in the contemporary Caribbean political mix, the contending parties differ very little ideologically. This means that a section of the electorate is less wedded to one party or the other, and, as such, serves as a floating voting bloc. It appears that newer and younger voters are the ones pushing this trend, as they tend to be less knowledgeable about the past glories and excesses of the political parties, and therefore make political decisions based on what they currently experience.

Whether this new trend is a healthy development for the region is left to the political and social scientists to ponder, but political leaders also must take notice. Here, in Guyana, the once invincible PPP was beaten twice at the polls, and the new coalition government has come under early pressure, particularly from its own supporters, to deliver on campaign promises and to elevate itself above the standards of its predecessor. It seems therefore that governments now have very little breathing space; the days of the honeymoon period are gone.

Whereas, in the past, governments could move at a leisurely pace, they now have to hit the ground running.

In the circumstances, those who may be arguing that the new government has been in power for merely a year, and therefore should be given more time to prove itself, may want to re-evaluate that thesis. One year under this emerging paradigm may be equivalent to five years under the one we have been accustomed to.