It is in the interest of some political commentators to believe and suggest there is no philosophical divide between the two major political parties. Such a perspective might have been true more so in the past than now.
In recent times, philosophical differences have emerged with respect to the management of the economy, the financing of tertiary education and the pricing of energy products, to name a few. These differences are no longer simply stylistic.
But it suits some analysts to ignore the differences that have unquestionably emerged, in order to justify the more sentimental politics of personalities. Having chosen to ride two horses in the same race, it would be impossible for the same analysts to use philosophy to determine a preference for one or the other. The preference has to be based on pragmatism – that is, what is practical or simply the conditions on the day. In short, the analysts are in a no-loss position, which serves their self-interests.
It is important to understand that the absence of a philosophical divide between the two major parties keeps the politics in the proverbial gutter as it remains personal, which is where showdowns occur and those with an appetite for the salacious are fulfilled. As with any other organism, the conditions for its growth must be favourable. In this case, there are no longer any masters of invective and innuendo in the political arena. The last king of the art has passed on and with that passing so too has an era.
In the circumstances, the recent Budget debate marked the beginning of a new dawn in which by necessity issues became the centrepiece of our political discourse. In this vein, it was impossible for any neutral observer not to recognize the superiority of Mia Mottley’s Budget Reply, based on the following elements of a speech which include: (1) to inform; (2) to advocate; (3) to inspire; (4) to motivate and (5) to convince. In such a long presentation, there is room for some entertainment as well.
Indeed, the major flaw in the speech of the Minister of Finance was its structure. It was a major error to finish with issues of CLICO and more so Redjet. In addition, it was intellectually lazy to use an entire column from a newspaper to end the speech. By now, it is well known that Minister Sinckler is very uncomfortable with numbers.
A fundamental divide has emerged over the treatment of local spending in the pursuit of economic growth. The ruling party is convinced that it is detrimental to increase spending power among locals because of its impact on the foreign reserves, notwithstanding that the country’s chief economic adviser argued that a larger fiscal deficit would not have had a negative effect on the reserves.
On the other hand, the Opposition has proposed that in the presence of adequate foreign reserves cover reported by the Central Bank of Barbados, increasing local spending via tax relief, in the absence of wage and salary hikes, is the appropriate stimulus for the economy.
Philosophically, the Democratic Labour Party seems to be locked into the concept of the plantation economy, which falls into a general class of externally propelled economies. Not to appreciate the differences between a sugar-based economy and a tourism-driven economy is to fail to understand the latter’s linkages to construction, retail and distribution, transportation, financial services and telecommunications. Sugar production did not need the accompanying support and infrastructure to carry it, unlike tourism.
In relation to the pricing of energy products and electricity, the current administration does not accept that our crude oil production must be used to the benefit of local consumers, especially of electricity. It does not accept that Barbados National Oil Company (BNOC) is not to suck every last ounce of profit out of the pockets of users of gasoline and diesel.
Certainly, the Government does not understand the critical role played by the pricing of energy products in determining the overall cost of living. Energy is to an economy what blood is to the human body!
Finally, the University of the West Indies is producing students for the country. It is entitled to payment.
It must not be made to borrow from the “entity” to pay for the services which it provided.
There are philosophical differences between the political parties.
