In June 1985, political commentator Dr. Kenneth John published a column assessing the first year in office of the Mitchell-led New Democratic Party (NDP) administration, which had swept into power the previous year. Among the key actions Dr. John highlighted from the new government were the release of Junior Cottle after more than a decade of incarceration, the recruitment of former Caribbean Development Bank official Arnhim Eustace to head the country’s planning division, and the appointment of St. Claire Leacock to lead the Marketing Board.
The most enduring takeaway from Dr. John’s 1985 column, however, was his conclusion on the NDP’s early fiscal approach: the government had stayed on a sustainable path by prioritizing strict budget discipline and implementing a temporary austerity program, rather than falling into what Dr. John called the permanent debt trap of the International Monetary Fund — the only other option on the table at the time. This 40-year-old observation carries new weight today, as the island nation once again grapples with pressing questions about public debt under a new NDP administration, drawing sharp comparisons between past and present political eras.
The current political debate over national debt has reignited after recent public disclosures on the country’s fiscal position from Prime Minister Richmond Friday and IMF representatives. The now-opposition Unity Labour Party (ULP) has seized on the disclosures to criticize the new NDP government, but this analysis turns the lens the other way, examining the cumulative debt accumulated by ULP during its 25 years in power.
When Mitchell’s NDP took control from the previous Cato-led Labour administration in 1984, the incoming government inherited a national debt of EC$190 million. Mitchell publicly described the sum as a “helluva debt situation”, particularly given the unaffordable 9% to 11% interest rates attached to the infrastructure development loans that made up much of the total.
When ULP won power in 2001, then-Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves argued the new administration had inherited a poor fiscal hand. Speaking during a December 2001 parliamentary session, Gonsalves claimed the outgoing NDP government had left behind a total national debt of EC$640 million, including EC$140 million in debt tied to the controversial Ottley Hall development project. After the Ottley Hall debt was ultimately forgiven, the adjusted debt legacy left by the NDP after 17 years in power stood at EC$500 million. Subtracting the EC$190 million the NDP inherited from Cato’s government, this works out to an average of just EC$18 million in new debt added each year during the NDP’s tenure.
By the end of September 2007, just six years into ULP’s first term, official reports put the national debt at EC$1.162 billion. With the Ottley Hall debt written off that same year, this represents a net increase of EC$662 million in just six years. Notably, the value-added tax (VAT), a major new revenue stream, was introduced just months before this debt milestone, in May 2007.
Official budget data from 2015 puts the national debt at EC$1.51 billion as of September 30, 2014, meaning the national debt grew by an additional EC$348 million between 2007 and 2014. By the end of 2019, the official debt total had reached EC$1.7 billion, an increase of EC$190 million over the 2014 to 2019 period. As of September 30, 2023, 2024 budget estimates pegged the total national debt at EC$2.5 billion — split between EC$726 million owed to domestic creditors and EC$1.7 billion in external loans. This works out to an EC$800 million increase over just four years, from 2019 to 2023.
When the current NDP administration took office in November 2025, it publicly disclosed that the national debt had grown past EC$3.5 billion, meaning ULP added roughly EC$1 billion to the national debt between September 2023 and the end of 2025, when it left office. In total, over 25 years of ULP governance, the national debt grew by EC$3 billion, averaging EC$120 million in new debt added per year — nearly seven times the annual average recorded by the previous NDP administration.
This commentary is the work of an independent observer, and the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of iWitness News. Opinion submissions may be sent to [email protected]. This analysis sets the stage for a deeper full comparison of the 1980s NDP administration and the current NDP government when the current administration marks its first anniversary in office.