I prefer, and I’ve said it to the teachers, that if there has to be a separation, that separation takes account of the facts that we operate under and subscribe to the rule of law, and therefore, if there has to be a separation eventually, legal grounds would have to be found for that separation. The grounds can only be found on evidence. – Prime Minister Freundel Stuart at a Press conference last Thursday on the Alexandra School impasse
It is painfully obvious that Prime Minister Freundel Stuart does not have the legal ammunition to fire at the embattled principal of The Alexandra School, Jeff Broomes.
It has manifested itself as a glaring deficiency in the armoury of the office of Prime Minister once regarded by constitutional scholars as an all-powerful entity with powers bordering on the dictatorial.
Its absence has now triggered the rather lame resort to an expensive Commission of Inquiry to be chaired by retired justice of appeal Fredrick Waterman simply to find the evidence necessary to make a decision.
It is clear that the Prime Minister is now playing for time, in a political sense; since an inquiry will, by its very nature, take several months from start to a final report. The drawn-out nature of public inquiries in the past may provide Stuart with the time he needs not to have to make a decision before the calling of the next general election.
This assertion about the timing of the next election is fascinatingly political as, obviously, only the Prime Minister knows when he intends to make such a call.
A few weeks ago, I wrote that every decision by a politician is political; and this unexpected turn in the Alexandra saga is proof.
Evidence a must
The core of the Prime Minister’s Press conference is that the principal of the Alexandra School can only be prosecuted with evidence that would stand the test of a properly constituted court of law.
Notwithstanding a report submitted to the Ministry of Education since April 2011 – which appears to have been gathering dust on the desk of Minister of Education Ronald Jones – it seems that there is not sufficient evidence to separate Broomes from his post.
Further, it has been suggested that the job contract of the principal is written in such a way that his separation requires his consent, unless there is damning evidence of some illegality on his part.
In the absence of such evidence, it would cost – as Bajans are given to saying – a wash pan of money to pay out the principal.
Last January, Stuart had indicated on persuading the 30 plus Alexandra teachers to call off their three-week strike, that their return to duty would have been only phase one of corrective action to restore the school to normalcy.
Since then, the entire nation has been waiting virtually with bated breath for phase two of the process.
So, now that phase two of the saga is apparently upon us, it is important to look at the politics.
During last Thursday’s Press conference, Stuart was at pains to point out that he was long past phase two of the process outlined in his January Press conference, but he had no intention of saying what phase he was at now.
This is another example of an eloquent, erudite wordsmith who fails to communicate.
“I was hearing a lot of talk about when is phase two,” Stuart said. “I did not say that I was planning to give anybody any running commentary on when I got to phase two, or phase three, or phase four. But what I can tell you is this: I passed phase two long, long, long ago.
“But I never promised anybody any running commentary on this matter. I said that, given the complexity of the matter, there’d be other phases. But all those people who are still at phase two are really far, far behind me – although I’m not prepared to say what phase we are at now.”
It has apparently not yet dawned on the Prime Minister that he is now entrusted with the leadership of the people to whom he is answerable. The notion that he leads in secrecy is understandable in matters of security and others of sensitivity. But there is nothing in the Alexandra saga which suggests that caution is the order of the day.
Indeed, in having to concentrate on what not to say in his Press conferences, the Prime Minister comes over as a feeble communicator. Given his reputation for being a wordsmith and his obvious facility with the language, one is left to wonder why he is not an effective communicator.
Stuart’s perceived strength has turned out to be a weakness. The initial preference for silence on his part was interpreted as a personality trait. Eventually, he responded, though unwillingly, to the need to break his silence. However, the breaking of his silence has not revealed a self-assured leader.
In fact, the response of the Barbados Secondary Teachers’ Union (BSTU) to continue this second phase of its strike has the potential to back the Prime Minister into a corner which threatens to expose him to the political machinations he apparently wants to avoid with the setting up of a commission of inquiry.
There is another political factor that is conspicuous in its absence; the presence of the substantive Minister of Education Ronald Jones at the Press conferences.
It is inexplicable that a minister who, until very recent times, acted as Prime Minister, is kept away from the Press on this issue of national importance.
Obvious casualty
Yes, there has been a falling out over the Eager Eleven travesty, and Jones is an obvious casualty, but the public relations on the Alexandra saga has still suffered from the Government side.
This raises issues about the potential for further discomfort among those on the inside.
The more socially prepared Prime Minister may find that the temperature in industrial relations changes automatically from that of the boardroom once the industrialists come into the glare of the public.
The BSTU is quite clear on what it wants in or out of the boardroom, whereas after all this time, the same cannot be said of the Government led by Prime Minister Stuart.
Perhaps, the process started on the wrong foot when the Government buckled to the wish of the union not to have the other party at the meetings. The blatant exercise of such authority is practised only in the classroom where there is a subordinate. But in industrial relations, neither the objective nor the process is so black and white.
In the midst of all the uncertainty, there is one certain thing, and that is that the students of the Alexandra School have become the victims. The notion that taking action now would set a precedent in industrial relations, because no union has ever requested the separation of a principal as a condition in a dispute, is not enough to set up a commission of inquiry.
This decision to kick the can down the road, presumably to be dealt with in a second term, or by a new Government, merely delays the timing of the action, since whatever the evidence from the inquiry, a precedent would have been set with respect to the separation of the principal or the aggrieved teachers.
• Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent.
