I often feel that political life is much too unkind to those who pursue office, but always took comfort in the belief that as a humble “messenger”, not entitled to any of the benefits like money and power, I would be spared some of the more extreme abuses of politics.
The events of the last week have, however, assured me that people at all levels of the political enterprise are ultimately subject to the same unpleasant treatment.
In this regard, several issues coincide although I am to this day convinced that they are largely unrelated. These need to be addressed in turn and should begin with the issue of my termination from the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Since I am still unable to explain it, little more can be said at this stage other than that I remain committed to that institution’s objectives.
I appreciate that the substantive post I held there did not exist prior to my assuming those duties and could therefore have been considered “tenuous”.
The intention of this administration to create an institutionalized post of political commentator at CBC is laudable and I am confident that, at some future point, conditions will again support its re-establishment.
Notwithstanding these noble intentions, the delicacy of a state-owned corporation retaining a “political critic” who will ultimately have to “square off” against his employers at some stage, cannot be overlooked.
In present-day Barbados, this delicacy is enhanced by the fact that there is considerable uncertainty in the public domain regarding the personalities preferred in each party. It is unfortunate that people in Barbados believe I have personally handpicked winners whom I am now trying to foist on the public and both political parties.
Like anyone else, I have my preferred political personalities as well as opinions on the best way forward for the leadership of both parties, in light of my views on succession planning and especially in regard to the disastrous example provided by the Democratic Labour Party’s post-Barrow era.
These personal views do not always coincide with poll data, but sometimes there is harmony. In either case, I am true to my commitment as a pollster and I present – through scientific method – the mood and collective opinion of the public.
When this mood is aligned to the current political status quo, then I am considered fair in my presentation of public opinion. However, when you reflect opinions that are not aligned to the politicians, they reactto protect themselves. I am declared either incompetent or unduly influenced.
Regardless of which variant one believes, the fact remains that the truth will not change because I “lie” about it or remain silent. Ultimately, when the day of judgement comes, Peter Wickham will have no control over the actions of voters. Enough said!
The other side of this political muddle relates to what has now become known as “Wikigate” and the preposterous suggestion that I am a spy of some sort.
I responded by way of a Press release last week that made it clear that I never met privately with Ambassador Mary Kramer, or conveyed information that would have betrayed the confidence of my clients, or was anything other than true to the natural and inherent purpose of my profession.
One should also note that as a political consultant of the polling variety, I am not privy to campaign finance information and any suggestions to the contrary would be fanciful. However, I do have strong views on political party financing issues which I have presented in these pages and elsewhere in the public domain.
There appears to be some mystique and suspicion surrounding my conversations with people affiliated with the United States Embassy.
While I had never thought it was necessary to explain my job of a political scientist, it is now prudent I state that I have frequently chatted with officials from several other missions here in Barbados and across the region.
I have spoken to people from the Australian High Commission, British High Commission, Canadian High Commission, Chinese Embassy, Cuban Embassy, the European Delegation, Japanese Mission and Taiwanese Embassy.
I have also been interviewed by assessment teams from the International Monetary Fund and Standard & Poor’s.
In addition, I frequently chat with representatives from media houses like the Miami Herald, Associated Press and the BBC, as well as research institutes and other independent agencies like Transparency International.
This type of thing is not unusual for a political scientist and I have always been flattered that such institutions would consider me a “credible source”.
However, I have no control over what is reported and what my name is attached to. Credibility is a two-edged sword since it means that people believe you and it also means that people can easily attach your name to expressions as a way of validating them, but it comes with the territory.
In all instances my interaction with such people and institutions has been at their express invitation and, generally, in response to specific questions posed. The information conveyed is always either an opinion or information in the public domain.
I can also state categorically that I have never received any money from any such agency for information provided or time given.
In all of this it is clear that an agenda has emerged that one finds difficulty explaining.
A careful reading of the “leaked cables” demonstrates that there are several issues addressed and, in most instances, several named sources.
In one of them I was able to identify a named private sector leader, a named senior foreign service officer and one named senior Government minister who all spoke “privately” with either the ambassador or an officer regarding similar issues. However, not one such person has been publicly ridiculed or identified as an “informer” in the way that I have.
This issue is clearly therefore framed as a direct assault on my integrity and character.
I can only assume that whoever is behind this prefers a different type of political consultant – probably one with knowledge and integrity of a level similar to their own.
Although this experience has been challenging, I have drawn strength from the fact that I am the grandson of a gentleman who also endured a similar experience at the hands of equally backward people 81 years ago.
He (Clennell W. Wickham) once said that he was “the soldier that was not afraid to die in battle and the journalist who was not afraid to tell the truth in politics”.
Like him, I, too, am not afraid to tell the truth in politics, but unlike him I have no intention of going into exile; so those who I make uncomfortable will be forced to tolerate this Wickham for a while longer.
Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).