IT IS MY BELIEF that by now most right-thinking people in this country would have come to the conclusion that the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) administration has bitten off much more than it can chew.
The DLP must have the presence of mind to conclude, after more than six years in office, that governing Barbados calls for more than delivering hard-hitting, entertaining campaign speeches. That is where they peaked.
However, judging from the sorry state of politics in Barbados, those same right-thinking persons could not be faulted if they were to ask: Are we being well served by the Opposition? Commentators have been saying that the present administration is the poorest in our history. Be that as it may, the same sentiment applies equally to the Opposition.
I am firmly of the view that the Opposition is going about aimlessly just to give the impression that they are relevant, while putting minimal pressure on the Government.
The recent charade, oops, I mean, no-confidence motion, to my mind, has exposed the Opposition as bordering on incompetence. It was ill-conceived with no hope of success. To the discerning, it appeared that they were only in it for the sake of the fight, not for a victory. Mind you, it would have provided a good platform from which to launch their annual conference. Unfortunately for them, superior political strategy from the DLP caused the no-confidence motion to fizzle.
If the Opposition was seriously looking to make an impact that would benefit the suffering masses, they should have taken the Government to court. In the no-confidence motion they suggested that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had no legal authority to collect the consolidation tax.
If the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) were convinced of its position, I am sure that with an annual salary of $129 026.76 per annum, the Leader of the Opposition would be having that tax deducted from her salary. She would therefore have standing to pursue a claim in the High Court to recover any money that was illegally deducted according to them.
If she succeeded in her claim, it would not only force the Government back to the drawing board: it would serve as a precedent for all others who were similarly affected to recover their money. Instead, the Opposition opted to pursue their claim by way of a no-confidence motion that was doomed to fail for the same reason that the Prime Minister cannot seemingly exercise control over his parliamentary group. One defection from the Government benches can bring down the Government and with it, many of them would not qualify for their pensions.
Enlightened self-interests dictate that the DLP members of the House of Assembly would hang in there until they qualify for their pensions which are payable from age 50, a full 17 years before the rest of us.
Those persons who were elected in 2003 would qualify for a pension of two-thirds of their highest salary in 2015: those entering the Parliament for the first time in 2008 would qualify for a pension of half of their highest salary in 2016. I therefore do not see anyone on the Government side co-operating with the Opposition to bring down the Government in these circumstances.
Let’s assume that a member on the Government’s side supported the motion. The Opposition would have secured 15 votes and the Government 14, and with the Speaker, by tradition, only voting in the event of a tie: the motion would have passed. But it would have been incapable of removing the Minister of Finance because he only requires the confidence of the PM to hold on to his job. In effect, win, lose or draw the motion would have had no practical impact on the Government.
This is not the first time during this DLP administration that the Opposition failed to use its best efforts to protect the country from the Government’s excessive behaviour.
Most people should recall that during the 2007-8 election campaign, the DLP promised that if elected, they would put the Barbados Water Authority under the purview of the Fair Trading Commission. The new administration carried out its election promise in March 2009 by publishing a notice, in the Official Gazette, to allow water and sewage rates to be regulated by the FTC. This meant that all future adjustments to those rates would have to be determined by the FTC.
When Government wanted to increase the water rates by 60 per cent, they published a notice purportedly removing the BWA from under the Fair Trading Commission and then they increased the rates. The Opposition complained but took no further steps to force the Government to comply with the law. Section 37 (3) of the Utility Regulation Act states:
The Minister may on the recommendation of the Commission or on his own initiative exempt the utility service supplied by any service provider or part of that utility service from the application of all or any of the provisions of this act, where the Minister is satisfied that the market for the utility service supplied by the service provider is effectively competitive.
The Minister could not have reasonably been satisfied that the supply of water is effectively competitive since there is only one supplier. He therefore had no power to exempt the BWA from the application of the act. Any subsequent increase in water rates would, in my view, be illegal.
I am left to conclude that the Opposition either does not want to regain the Government in these trying times or they don’t know what to do. Your guess is as good as mine.
Caswell Franklyn is a trade unionist and social commentator.
Email caswellf@hotmail.com.