IN THE PAST, I have frequently disagreed with David Comissiong and on one occasion our disagreement regarding his Commission on Pan African Affairs was played-out in these pages. I have never doubted Comissiong’s sincerity or his commitment to the causes he supports but like so many others I have found him to be misguided from time to time. This was not the case last week, however, and I feel compelled to speak of my support for his comments as vociferously as I have condemned him in the past.
Comissiong’s remarks related to his concerns about the propriety of a Royal visit at this juncture in our development and moreover the particular Royal selected to perform this pan-Caribbean mission.
I have never been a fan of Royal visits whether it be the Queen or one of her heirs or successors. In the past, I have penned Royal Fuss (2011) and Another Royal Mess (2012) in response to a previous Royal visit and our decision to send a representative to the Royal wedding. Generally, I consider these frolics to be a waste of resources that are currently being called upon in so many ways that are more important.
On this occasion, however, my concerns are more significant and in line with Comissiong’s. As he noted, Barbados separated from the UK Monarch in 1966 and while we have refused to complete this break, there seems to be something perverse about a decision to commemorate the anniversary by celebrating a direct descendant of the family that embodied all the negatives of colonialism that encouraged us to move towards independence.
In anticipation of this anniversary, the Prime Minister made a cryptic suggestion that we would celebrate our 50th birthday by becoming a republic; however, he appeared to lack the political will to advance this legislative agenda and instead sought to make the Royal visit the centrepiece of our celebrations which is illogical. The fact that Prince Harry was apparently on a regional tour and seemed to have offered to “drop by” does little to help my concern since it was clear to everyone that he was a guest of our Government.
It is difficult to articulate a critique of this most recent Royal visit without speaking to the individual Royal who several of us across the region seem to have forgotten is easily the most politically incorrect of Royals. The problem Prince Harry presents is best summarised by a quotation taken from Owen Arthur in the wake of Harry’s famous Nazi costume fiasco in 2005. At that time, Arthur argued that Harry himself provided an additional reason to finalise our break with the monarchy and said: “Heaven forbid, but if Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth were to die; if Prince Charles and Prince William were to die, I would have a fundamental difficulty swearing allegiance to King Harry.”
This fiasco for which Harry eventually apologised, was preceded by a highly publicised episode of alcohol and drug use when he was 16 and was followed by his more recent frolic in Las Vegas (2012) when he stripped down while apparently playing a game of “strip-billiards”. This episode was unfortunately captured on camera, giving rise to the headline . . . Heir It Is (The Sun, 24 Aug 2012). I should add that it is for these precise reasons that I like Prince Harry. To me, he presents himself as an imperfect mortal who is subject to the same human failings we all have. I am, however, still not comfortable casting him in a role that embodies our nationhood since he does not represent the values that this nation ought to cherish.
Ironically, Prince Harry’s tour generated criticism in three countries which demonstrate the extent to which people seemed to overstate his relevance to our respective statehoods. In Antigua, Prime Minister Gaston Brown was criticised for having a bit of politically incorrect fun with him. In Grenada, their decision to use the first available national event to pay a moment’s silence to a person in whose shadow Harry cannot dare walk, was also criticised as being inappropriate which is to say the very least, ironic.
In St Kitts and Nevis, however, a hero emerged in the shape of Prime Minister Timothy Harris who skipped Harry’s visit because it did not coincide with his schedule. Ironically, the smallest state with the most junior prime minister taught Harry the most important lesson about his relevance to our Caribbean development.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: [email protected]
