THE POTENTIAL takeover of BHL, which could land “our” largest beverage manufacturer in “foreign” hands, has ignited Barbadian nationalism yet again and presents me with a fascinating set of circumstances that remind me of the extent to which I view these types of issues so very differently to the average Barbadian.
In considering this issue, one has first to appreciate the extent to which much of the fuss is related to factors external to BHL, such as the rebranding of Barbados National Bank (BNB) and the sale of Barbados Shipping and Trading (BS&T). These events are not related to the BHL issue, but seem to remind us that many of our corporate symbols are no longer ours and this understandably inflames our sense of nationalism.
One suspects that the vast majority of persons whose sense of nationalism is offended by this issue do not fully comprehend the complex corporate subject matter behind the potential BHL take over.
The relationship between BHL, SLU and Massy Holdings is certainly complex, but the events that led to this current situation are frighteningly simple. It would appear that some years ago BHL sought cheaper financing for a new plant, which was needed to modernise its operations, and like several prudent companies BHL opted for the equity option instead of the debt option. The identity and nationality of the new equity partner is quite frankly irrelevant (to my mind) since this is about a business decision that was no less prudent than the government’s decision to establish the BNB and ICB in one era and then sell both of them in another.
Barbadians might forget, but we are in-reality quite familiar with both the equity financing option and the practical reality of selling shares as reflected in our relationship with BL&P/Emera. Some years ago the management of BL&P took a prudent decision to raise capital by way of a share issue a few prudent Barbadians took up and this allowed BL&P, which was an efficiently run local enterprise, to raise much needed capital. Their decision to raise capital by way of a share issue made as much sense as the BHL directors decision and those among us who took up this offer justifiably believed that they were mixing good business sense with the protection of our national heritage.
It was equally clear more recently that these concerns about nationalism were less pressing when these same nationalistic Barbadians voluntarily sold their interest in BL&P to a foreign firm by the name of Emera. While I hold no malice towards Emera or any other foreign firm that seeks to invest in Barbados, one would think that its domination of a public utility would be more offensive to us than the possibility that SLU will either move the production of a Guyanese beer called “Banks” to St Lucia or scuttle it altogether in deference to a Dutch beer called Heineken. If nationalism worked here the way it should, the Emera deal, however well-intentioned, could have been stopped by average Barbadians protecting their national interest. As such these same average folk are now therefore in no position to stand behind the panes of their “glass houses” and hurl “rock-stones” at the wealthy directors of BHL who behaved no differently to us.
Entities like BHL and Massy Holdings are easy and logical targets against which we can direct our nationalistic anger since these are wealthy and in the case of Massy Holdings, “foreign” entitles. It is however important in the interest of fairness to appreciate the extent to which the BHL rationale differs little from that of the average Barbadian householder who seeks to protect his/her interest. Our recent preoccupation with these issues of contrived nationalism is tinged with hypocrisy and is highly idealistic. In addition, it can be argued that as a country we are expending valuable energy on matters that will have little material impact, while ignoring less obvious opportunities to grow the Barbados brand.
Barbadians are not alone in this regard, since Grenadians also celebrate a foreign beer as their own and Anguillans are now challenging a decision of the British to impose controls on their financial sector while openly admitting to having little interest in independence. It therefore seems like many of us have peculiar notions of how nationalism ought to be defined and these are driven largely by convenience, which is perhaps understandable. Our concepts, however, need to keep pace with a region and world that is evolving, which means that we perhaps ought to define our own nationalism in a way that is both contemporary and evolutionary.
