IF THERE IS indeed any value in the concept of “independence” and if one is able to genuinely attach that label to MP for St Peter and former Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Owen Arthur, then there may be immense utility in our current Government leaders taking a second listen to his contribution to the Budget debate in the House of Assembly Wednesday night.
Given the nature of partisan politics, it would not be unreasonable for any person who listened to the Budget presentation by Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler to take whatever he said with a pinch of salt. After all, for all his pronouncements about what’s good for the country, he is still a politician with a seat to retain in a few years.
By the same token, while Opposition Leader Mia Mottley would have scored big across political lines with her sustained attack on the Government and its individual members, it certainly would not have escaped even her most ardent supporters that she has political aspirations that will influence her direction.
If the veteran St Peter MP can be taken at his word, however, the fact that he has no obligation to either party puts him in an ideal position to pronounce on national affairs, using his enviable background, in a manner that ought to serve as guidance for those in charge. That he is not seeking re-election serves only to buttress that position.
When, therefore, Mr Arthur warns the Government that by taking $200 million out of the economy in the form of increased taxes it will constrain that economy and stifle any chance of growth unless there is an injection of at least $500 million in new investment, it should not be taken lightly.
When the Opposition Leader criticises Governor of the Central Bank Dr Delisle Worrell and calls for his removal that’s one thing, but when an “independent” Mr Arthur equates the governor’s assessment to what one would expect from the infamous “Ossie Moore”, it ought not to be taken lightly.
When operatives in the economic and/or political community raise questions about this administration’s new emphasis on selling Government savings bonds and Mr Arthur says these bonds should come with a label similar to the mandatory warnings placed on cigarette boxes, we all ought not to take it lightly.
When Mr Arthur tells the Minister of Finance there is no shame in seeking debt refinancing as a key component of the country’s recovery strategy, something countries, companies and individuals do all the time, he ought not to be taken lightly.
In our view, the former Prime Minister performed in a manner during his presentation that we are sure impressed many Barbadians, and if the important players on both sides of the political divide, but particularly the members of the Government, can set aside their partisan hats for a moment and fairly consider what he said, the future might be less painful for all.
Constitutional experts and scholars of the Westminster system may want to add a historical perspective and background to the debate of this week, but John Public will perhaps be more interested in judging the sincerity of those who spoke and those to whom they spoke. And if the Budget debate is more than just an exercise in the expulsion of hot air, and if a Government is genuinely interested in “advice” from outside its own benches, then there can’t be a more potent demonstration than one in which this Government says to Mr Arthur: “We have heard you, sir; we have been listening.”