THIS YEAR has clearly got off to a rollicking start with a number of critical issues all rearing their heads at the same time.
The unions, as predicted, have thrown down the gauntlet on behalf of their respective constituencies, and in the face of feel-good declarations that the economy is improving and new investments are on the way, one of the country’s biggest insurance companies is pulling up roots and moving elsewhere. Additionally, even as the governor of the Central Bank, DeLisle Worrell, pats himself on the back and suggests a new role for the Bank, the issue of crime must be a critical cause of concern. On the international level, the world is locked in a tense debate about how to frame a new development agenda which will determine the key national development priorities for the next 15 years.
In all of this there seems to be an air of expectancy in Barbados; people are waiting for something to happen. It’s almost as if the country is holding its breath, waiting for what I do not think anyone is quite sure. The assumption is that there must be some response from the political level as it seeks to demonstrate that it is listening, aware and can be responsive to the events going on around it. More than anything, I believe people also want some demonstration that those who govern this country are prepared to shake off the lukewarm performance of recent years and take a fresh guard for 2015.
The Barbados Labour Party (BLP) seems to have grasped the need for change, showing clear signs that the party is seeking to respond to the ongoing perception of disunity and lack of control by leader Mia Mottley. The elevation of MP Santia Bradshaw suggests that there has been a fundamental shift in Ms Mottley’s strategy from trying to appease and work with the old stalwarts, to promoting some new and perhaps less troublesome faces.
The problem that Ms Mottley might have is that there is a danger in sidelining as opposed to neutralising one’s opponents.
Importantly, I am not sure that Ms Mottley has quite got a handle of what the public expects from her and the Opposition in this season. She might do well to spend some time in the annals of history and pay particular attention to the story of the “three blind mice”.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the rumour mill suggests an imminent Freundel Stuart Cabinet reshuffle. I am unsure if the suggested reshuffle is borne out of the sheer hope and desperation of people for some glimmer of life from the ruling party, if it just an assumption that this is what should happen, or if indeed there have been some soundings from the party itself that it is on the horizon. Importantly, the main suggestion is that there is to be some movement in the ministry of finance with the Prime Minister taking on this portfolio. I am not hopeful on either count. If I understand the nature of our Prime Minister he is not one to go around sharing his plans for a reshuffle. It will perhaps come as a surprise to his Cabinet and to the public alike.
Now that the rumour is in the air, the Prime Minister I am sure will be ever resistant to be seen to responding to public suggestions and therefore we should all not hold our collective breaths at the prospect of it happening any time soon (in a game of who can hold their breath the longest, the PM would win hands down). Moreover, I think that the notion of the Prime Minister taking over the finance portfolio is perhaps about more “shadow than substance”. People want the appearance of leadership knowing full well that in most cases it is someone else doing the real work. I am unsure if the situation would change much if the PM became minister of finance. I doubt that his penchant for being unresponsive to public outcry and providing answers to urgent concerns will fundamentally shift.
Modern cabinets all over the world are organising on the basis of strategically putting in place the best people that can get the job done in the face of urgent crises. Moving the current minister of finance has to be based on an assessment of whether he holds the confidence of the stakeholders with whom he has to work or whether he can be held accountable for the current state of the economy. If the answer to either question is yes, then move him, but as to whether the natural choice should be the Prime Minister I would suggest that we tread very carefully and think very strategically. As to the rest of the Cabinet that might need to move, I say toss everyone up in the air and see where the chips land.
Importantly, though I would like to suggest that a lot of this is more shadow than substance. There is very little indication that either party has grasped the fundamental moment that is taking place. The contention with workers, the prevalence of certain types of crime and the conflicting tides in the economy are not incidental.
The next ten to 15 years will be very dependent on the choices that are made today. What is needed more than shifts and power plays is real thinking about how we do development and what it should be like economically, socially and environmentally.
Shantal Munro-Knight is a development specialist and executive coordinator at the Caribbean Policy Development Centre. Email shantalmunro@gmail.com
