The results are in and a new Prime Minister and cabinet is to be sworn in. Bees out, Dems in. It is a state of affairs that many Barbadians would not have thought possible just a few months ago: fourteen years of rule under Prime Minister Owen Arthur’s government have finally come to an end.

From today we officially welcome the Right Honourable David Thompson, Prime Minister, former underdog and much-maligned leader of a party that was thought to be too ineffective and weak to command popular support. Political pollsters have recanted, the incumbent has admitted its downfall and the public lies in wait for what is ahead under the new administration. Arguably, all that has remained constant in the wake of the election is change, and it was the electorate’s indulgence in the temptation to change that led to the incumbent’s defeat: at least, that’s how the former government sees it.

Yet, the 20-10 parliamentary split in favour of Thompson’s Dees suggests much more determination and effort on the part of the electorate than what would normally characterize a mere flippant desire for change. In fact, given the stunning defeat of seasoned BLP parliamentarians and ministers by relatively new DLP candidates, the decision on January 15th appears more to reflect a complete rejection of the incumbent party and the status quo it came to represent.

A cursory look at Barbados’ socioeconomic profile and the latest international reports on development belie the defeat of Arthur’s government. After all, our dollar is stable, unemployment is below Third World levels and our human development indicators put us above all other countries in the developing world. Still, the incumbent government did not perform well in the popular vote, making it clear that the election was not won or lost on macroeconomics.

The two parties’ campaigns also had significant points of departure . The incumbent BLP exalted the former Prime Minister to almost messianic proportions in a bid to convince the public that they needed “Arthur now, more than ever” because Barbados was now, “better than ever”. His economic savvy and the statistics to back it up were as much as the public was treated to during the short campaign.

The DLP, on the other hand, steadily mainstreamed relatively new issues of transparency, accountability, democracy and a spiralling cost of living which resonated more with the public than Arthur’s praises and statistics.  Introspective voters no doubt juxtaposed their current state of affairs next to the incumbent’s assertion that Barbadians were having the best times of their lives, and voted accordingly. In the end, the poor and middle-class voted on micro rather than macro-economics, and opted for a government who appeared to have their individual interests at heart.

While it would not be fair to discount Arthur’s contribution to Barbados, it would also be inaccurate to say that the majority of Barbadians are in a position to agree that life had gotten any easier coming on to the end of Arthur’s third term. Many voters may not have known the intricacies of his economic management, foreign relations sucess and whatever else was touted on the BLP campaign platform as much as they knew their individual hardships and concerns.

For the past term Barbadians saw skyrocketing food costs next to severe overruns on capital works projects; closure of small, black enterprises next to competition from monopolistic conglomerates; exclusion from referenda on unpopular and unwanted policies such as the CSME next to a government that resisted criticism; dwindling hopes for housing next to large-scale land sale for multimillion-dollar condominium developments and the inefficiency of poverty relief next to elected officials who appeared to be far-removed from the plight.

The electorate did not vote for change on a whim. Rather, there were a bevy of issues which, to their minds, demanded it. To many Barbadians the incumbent had lost its touch with the people, and their campaign did little to engage the public’s trust and support for the extension of the status quo into another five years. In the end, a desperate electorate voted with faith and hope that better days could come under a new government. What is now left to be seen is whether those hopes bear fruit.