Before the recent Budget debate, the idealists among us were expressing the hope that given the dire state of the Barbados economy, it might be possible for the two major parties to adopt a bipartisan approach to tackling the issues confronting us.
Well, idealists, dream on. Extreme partisanship always reminds me of the Clint Eastwood movie where the bad guy says to the Eastwood character: “There are no great causes left to fight for. There is only the game. I’m on offence, you’re on defence.” Applied to politics, this view would represent not only a highly cynical, but a very dangerous notion. The future of Barbados and its people is not a game.
The Budget debate ruled out any possibility of bipartisanship. All the Government members rallied in defence of the motion. The loyal opposition rallied to their side in a display of political brinksmanship and crocodilian tearfulness about cruelty to the poor and the betrayal of the Barrow legacy. The resolution passed by a majority of 15 to 14. In golfing terms, it was par for the course.
The debate contributions were by and large predictable. Some made me recall C. Wright Mills’ statement: “The second-rate mind is in command of the ponderously spoken platitude. Vagueness and cliché are raised to a principle.” Former Opposition Leader Owen Arthur took a statesmanlike position. He observed that at this juncture we needed to avoid the blame game as to who had created the present crisis, because as he put, “we are here now”. The critical issue, said Mr Arthur, was: “How do we get out of it?” If we are as deeply imperilled as some have suggested, then “we the people” cannot see ourselves as spectators at an amusing political cockfight between the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) and Democratic Labour Party (DLP).
One could argue that since January 2008, the DLP Government, under a leadership that often appeared detached and uncommunicative, did not always pursue the governance of this country with the alacrity and due diligence required. However, given Mr Arthur’s perception that “we are here now” and must concentrate on getting out of it, the case against the BLP Opposition is that it has not stated to the Barbadian people how precisely it would reduce the country’s overall debt and more specifically, how it would deal with the current account deficit. Mr Arthur himself stated categorically: “You cannot run a country with such a large current account deficit each year.” Two leading economists, Mr Winston Cox and Mr Charlie Skeete, did not think the taxes imposed by the Budget were too burdensome considering the severity of the problem. Questioned on that issue, Mr Cox opined: “In relation to the objectives they set out to achieve, no, I don’t think so.”
There are no painless solutions to our current economic woes. For all the talk about the need to “restructure” the economy, the Budget has made little attempt at fundamental economic repositioning. How would the BLP deal with the problems of debt and deficit, given that it does not seem to want to make adjustments by raising taxation on the revenue side or cutting spending on the expenditure side? Those who want regime change, and it must be by the ballot, must answer the overriding question: How would a BLP government alter our present circumstance? How can we get out of the present debacle? The response must be specific, not some vague platitude about “growing the economy”.
While belabouring the failures of the Government, there was painfully little of the concrete language of economic restructuring in the BLP’s debate narrative. What exactly are you offering as a solvent to the twin issues of high debt and deficit? Is the BLP promising total relief from austerity? Are they promising absolutely no cut in social entitlements, including free university education? What level of budgetary stringency would the BLP impose, given that some degree of fiscal discipline is now a critical imperative? Is the game to win the next elections first and then say what must inevitably be done? Fool people again.
One letter writer noted that Ms Mottley’s declaration to reverse the decision on university fees was “an astute political move”. He suggested that a BLP notice to refund any fees paid after 2014 would return the Bees to power. He concluded thus: “Game, set, match! Slam dunk! Goal! Home run! Checkmate!” So Mia and the Bees hit a walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth inning. So what? Where does that leave a nation confronting debt and deficit?
The Barbadian people (those of us who are not amused by cock or dog fighting) must understand one thing. We were lucky in 1992 in our dealing with the International Monetary Fund. If we find ourselves in that institution’s grip again, we may not be so fortunate. If we find tax impositions cruel now, you ain’t see nothing yet. As for cuts in entitlements, they will be hell to pay. Wake up. Politics is not a game. People do suffer when countries are mismanaged for selfish political gain.
• Ralph Jemmott is a retired educator and social commentator.
