“ONE ONE BLOW DOES KILL OLD COW.”
The original author of this statement is uncertain; however, it appears to accurately reflect the national mood as industrial actions seems set to move to the second week in Barbados. Predictably, those who lobby for and speak on behalf of government have sought to compartmentalise this issue as one of the “right” of government to retire ten workers from The Badbados Investment and Development Corporation.
This is of course a matter of legal interpretation and unsurprisingly government prefers to refer such matters to either a court or tribunal. Such an approach while legal, relocates the matter to another institution, the authority of which cannot be challenged. More importantly, that institution is notoriously overwhelmed at present and is likely to take considerable time before pronouncing definitely on the matter. In such a circumstance, the “rightness” of the aggrieved party will be secondary to the timelessness of justice and one immediately recalls an analogous situation were a complainant who took action against the government died before the matter of his unlawful dismissal was pronounced upon.
It is for this reason that it is fortuitous that the National Union of Public Workers and Barbados Workers’ Union both appear to finally have come to grips with the shenanigans of a government which has successfully exploited the good nature of our public servants and in so doing squandered what little goodwill it has.
The Prime Minister has been consistent in his approach to these matters and has in the past invoked the assistance of a Commission of inquiry in once instance and in the second instance an ill-prepared tribunal to address matters which are not outside of his own remit as Prime Minister and Minister responsible for the Public Service.
The latter instance is particularly fascinating since he essentially passed judgement on the “wrongfulness” of the manner in which some National Conservation Commission workers were selected for dismissal, but thereafter recommended the tribunal as the appropriate agency to provide redress “in short order”.
Supporters of Prime Minister Stuart have heralded his obvious style of governance as a “model” which allows institutions to function with little interference and while it is popular with some, it appears to be a cumbersome impediment to progress in a small country with little time to waste.
Several years ago another commission of inquiry, this time under the leadership of Sir Herbert Duffus pronounced upon the very different style of Stuart’s predecessor E.W. Barrow and noted that “all roads led to Mr Barrow [and] all government business revolved around him, [which is] presumably right and proper for a small developing country”.
Naturally I am more comfortable with the style of E.W. Barrow and Sir Herbert and therefore find it unfortunate that our Prime Minister’s unwillingness to engage issues is being characterised as a “leadership model” worthy of emulation.
There can be no question that this style has served the Prime Minister and Democratic Labour Party (DLP) well over the past few turbulent years. It appears non-threatening and compared favourably with Arthur’s style initially; however, it is now becoming clear that such a presumption is grounded in the fact that we do not fully understand the nature of the threat we face as a nation.
We have elected a weak government led by an individual who is prepared to let the government run itself; hence the outcome will be such that these scenarios will replicate themselves continuously as we amble towards either the 2018 election or February 2016 (when all DLP MPs become pensionable). Governance in this era is therefore not about progress and development, but about survival and it is unfortunate that ten “old” people are seeking to challenge the survival of this DLP administration.
In earlier articles I referred to the concept of political capital, which is a phrase familiar to American politics and argued that this government lacks such capital, while badly needing it to respond to our economic challenges.
Austerity and adjustment are never easy programmes to implement and the challenges are exacerbated when a population is consistently being aggravated like this. In addition, the system of parliamentary scrutiny cannot function properly since the majority of one gives each MP the power to precipitate an election, which is coincidentally the root of the Prime Minister’s power.
It is therefore politically fortuitous that the DLP is being led by a person who is not prone to impose his will or “inject himself” into issues, so we are confident that this government will survive. The plight of the Public Service is, however, another matter and I am happy to see that its representatives have finally started to understand the plot and the struggle they face – which is not legal but political – and seem finally prepared to respond in kind.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: [email protected]
