THE RECENT OUTBURST of Minister Donville Inniss regarding his frustration with the extent to which “Government” is frustrating the efforts of legitimate investors and business people appears to have excited some commentators who are enamoured with his forthrightness.
As one who is also forthright and whose forthrightness has landed me on the wrong side of the DLP’s leadership, I am less impressed by the recent statements of Inniss who continues to be one of my preferred Dems. The simple reason I am less impressed is two-fold and will be explained.
This is not the first occasion on which Inniss has spoken frankly and neither is it the second. Indeed, he and a few others in the Cabinet have been speaking frankly about the style of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart and the manner in which he is managing this Government long before the 2013 election. A reflection on the facts would confirm that the “Eager 11” with whom Inniss was apparently associated complained about Stuart’s tardiness regarding an important party matter. Inniss and others did not complain about Stuart’s approach thereafter and when given the opportunity, returned to “his” Cabinet, while the remainder of us have continued to feel the effects of his indecision regarding matters relating to governance.
It is important that I acknowledge and perhaps Inniss would do well also to acknowledge the extent to which Stuart was right and “we” were wrong since his style was endorsed in the 2013 election in which he prevailed. It is, therefore, clear that while Inniss and myself are (were) of the opinion that Stuart’s style was not the most efficient, the election result proved that Barbadians preferred his approach to that of Owen Arthur who was very much “hands-on”. Those who read my thoughts regularly can attest to the fact that I have previously noted the extent to which Stuart’s “all in good time” approach has and will continue to impact on governance here negatively. These effects will be manifested in several sectors ranging from Town and Country Planning to the economy and I anticipated that considerable dislocation would result.
Notwithstanding, I publicly accepted the result of the last election as an affirmation of Stuart’s style and argued that we all needed to settle down and “give him a chance” since he was proven right.
I do complain occasionally but try for the most part to leave the good gentleman alone; however, the same cannot be said for either Inniss or one other Cabinet colleague who more recently started drinking the Kool aid (again). In the case of Inniss, therefore, we are now inclined to ask where this most recent torrent of complaints is going? Yes, we all now appreciate the extent to which you are “different” from the others; however, there comes a point when these protestations will become counterproductive since you are after all an integral and senior part of the Stuart administration and will therefore be judged accordingly for its sins when the time comes.
This most recent scenario is made all the more ironic when we consider the basis of Inniss’ outburst and note that it seems related to an ill-timed decision of a Government agency to destroy what I readily admit was a beautiful roundabout. The backstory is one of a businessman who now has several matters under review with the Government department responsible for planning and presumably in an effort to demonstrate that they were less useless than we are now inclined to think, a “building” was demolished although it was clearly harmless.
There is much that should be said about the convenience and opportunism about that department, but at this time it is enough to note that two other structures erected by the same businessman present a more clear and present danger to the public than the one which was demolished. In addition, it needs to be noted that around the same time another branch of this Government removed equally harmless vendors from the streets of The City because they were guilty of the unforgivable sin of trying to make an honest living.
The comparison should be obvious as both are Government departments that are doing their lawful duties in a manner that leaves much to be desired and is impacting on the livelihoods of god-fearing Barbadians with no ill intentions. Needless to say, one “offender” has several other options and employs an army of believers who are prepared to say the most ridiculous things in his defence, if necessary, while the others are just black and poor.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: peter.w.wickham@gmail.com
