A little bit of potpourri this Sunday because there are just too many good issues on the radar.
I like the Governor of the Central Bank. I consider him a bit of a maverick. He is not afraid to voice his own opinion even when it goes against the traditional grain and more importantly he appears to enjoy the task of defending his position to the hilt. His tussle with the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2012 about the appropriateness of their policy responses towards developing countries is a case in point. I do not believe that we have ever had a Central Bank so vocal on so many issues to date; clearly he has broken the mold. I can appreciate his forthrightness in some respects, especially in a society which has become all too timid about expressing alternative views. Such people make you sit up and take note even if you do not agree with everything they say.
However, the problem that officials who hold high public office will have is that they cannot afford to be mavericks. Whether they like it or not, public office places a restraint on one’s own preferences and opinions. It is a hazard of such jobs that one trades in for the office itself. It is, in my opinion, becoming difficult to distinguish when the governor is speaking in his official capacity and remit as governor and when he is speaking from a position which expresses his own personal likes and dislikes.
At times, some of his comments as reported in the media can come across as more suitable for a chat among friends sitting in the comfort of his home. They at times appear more dismissive than considered and while this can make good fodder for journalists, I am not sure it adds much too the critical information that we actually need from the Central Bank.
Importantly, while all seems to be well between the governor and the NATION at this point, there is an important lesson from the governor’s initial response for public officials. While personal offence can seem very real, public office will require one at times to move beyond what one might perceives as personal to consider the wider sociopolitical context within which ones operates. Responses therefore ought to be carefully considered to separate the personal reaction from the professional office. It was perhaps a knee-jerk reaction which might have prompted Dr Worrell’s response.
At the same time, there are some other lessons as well. I found the NATION’s response aggressive and perhaps a bit insensitive to the position in which the incorrect headline would have placed the Central Bank governor. Without prompting, once the mistake was highlighted, the NATION should have sent off a letter of apology followed up by a personal call from whomever. Mistakes happen, true, but the impact on the person that the mistake was perpetrated against must also be considered sensitively. Telling me sorry and hurry up and get over it is not exactly the best response.
More importantly for me was the fact that after the initial two-day hailstorm, there was nothing further from the members of the media fraternity in Barbados. It was interesting for me that after all the initial hullabaloo about press freedom being under threat and such like, none of the other media houses stood in solidarity and said we will boycott you. It is this lack of continual solidarity for principled positions among those affected that will allow for continued disrespect to be shown to the majority.
I am not sure whether to laud the unions for their Job-like patience in the ongoing dispute with the National Conservation Commission (NCC) or to express disgust at them for allowing themselves to shuffled from pillar to post, meeting after meeting with the same result. Doesn’t the definition of sanity sound just like this?
I know the picture is not that simple. Industrial relations is complex and you must have some give and take on both sides, it can be long and at times it is about the person that is determined to be the victor over the long haul. Fair enough, but really there is a thin line between being a Job who had previously had a revelation of the goodness of God and therefore knew in the end that God would come through, and hanging on to the promises of a process which has not produced any wins for the unions to date. The unions have been asking about a list ad nauseam since the beginning of 2014 that is yet to come and I am not sure why they believe that it will come in this game of meetings.
It will be interesting to see how the process will eventually pan out and it can actually be a signal case for the political landscape in Barbados. While publicly exposing suggested incidences of political nepotism might win public sympathy and ire I am sure that in certain quarters a few red flags have been raised. This issue perhaps will be resolved, not because of any action by the unions but perhaps by more political considerations. Who wants the unions snooping around in their departments and ministries ferreting out family members, the constituency padding and unpacking the so-called first in, last out “here today and not tomorrow” principle? We will look out for the wishy-washy agreement made to appease the union leadership.
Finally, I wanted to share this article I came across. The title was Hookers And Blow: How Changing The Definition Of GDP Officially Jumped The Shark. The author was commenting on the recent trend by governments, including the United States, to redefine the make-up of their GDP. Apparently, Italy is moving to include prostitutes and illegal drug sales in its GDP accounting. While we are under pressure to develop all of these fantastic strategies to boost our GDP, some parts of the world are playing smoke and mirrors – as always.
• Shantal Munro-Knight is a development specialist and executive coordinator at the Caribbean Policy Development Centre.
