About two years ago, all of the above [MPs], agreed to sacrifice ten per cent of their existing salaries as part of the austerity effort of the country, and that particular effort was extended for another period of time. – Minister of Youth, Sport and Culture Stephen Lashley, May 11, 2016.
Sacrifice – n, 2. an act of giving up something of value for the sake of something that is of greater value or importance (Oxford English Dictionary)
MY WISE OLD Man insisted that whenever you hear a politician saying he’s making a sacrifice so the people can benefit, watch his actions, not his words.
This Government is taking Barbadians’ common sense for granted. This cannot be the time for a restoration of a salary cut for Members of Parliament.
The intended sacrifice has not yielded the expected results because there has been a general deterioration in economic and social indicators since 2014.
Perhaps, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart and his Cabinet believe the time has come to send positive signals about the potential recovery of the economy and there is no better way to do so, from a political perspective, than to increase the salaries of public sector workers. Given that such an increase automatically triggers an increase in MPs’ salaries, self-interest dictates that the thing to do is to restore their salaries first.
In its absence, any increase to public workers would be placed on the lower post-2013 salaries for MPs, rather than the restored salaries of 2017.
As usual, the Governor of the Central Bank provided an opinion before the Cabinet, warning against salary increases for civil servants. His concerns centre on the very troubling fiscal position of Government and, equally, the state of the foreign reserves. He is not a politician.
Barbadians have been kept on the ropes for the first nine rounds of a gruelling economic and social encounter, but it is being hoped they will forget if taken off the ropes in the tenth round, if only by way of perception. 2017 happens to be the tenth and final round before the general election constitutionally due in February 2018. The expectation is for Government to play some politics in preparation for the final decision, regardless of the economic conditions.
There is no better political card to play, at this stage, than the “feel good” one. It is expected that Stuart, who usually marches to his own drumbeat, will this time consider the political market forces more in the timing of his decision. He is already showing unusual urgency in setting a timeline for planning permission for the controversial Hyatt project. Plus, other tourism projects that have been around for a long time are being readied.
Perhaps, the most significant political event in the last week was the way Stuart has decisively taken ownership, the first time, of Government’s economic programme. He is trying to take the spotlight off his spent minister of finance and, in essence, making it a referendum on himself. The issue of planning permission is taking precedence over fiscal incentives in determining a project’s relevance.
The political strategy in putting a bunch of contrasting issues in the public domain must not be taken for granted. The start of major tourism projects is to help mask the restoration of MPs’ salaries and its salutary effect on their pensions.
In 2014, Government sought to curry favour by putting minimal pressure on itself and the wider membership in Parliament. Now two rounds later, when no relief has been provided for financially weary Barbadians, it seeks to extricate itself from a minor show of sacrifice.
Thousands of workers lost jobs over the period and those who are still employed have suffered from a higher cost of living, smaller bank accounts and lower property values, among others. Notwithstanding the tremendous sacrifices made by Barbadians, there seems little hope of recovery. The recent economic evidence supports this contention.
No amount of light, in the final round or at the end of the tunnel, will be enough to wipe out the darkness experienced by Barbadians over the first nine rounds, because of predominantly poor economic management and indifferent political leadership.
The ability of Barbadians to be still standing is a measure of their resilience and strength of character in coping with difficulties in the past. On those occasions, the rules of engagement were far more clearly articulated by the political leaders.
Further, there was not a sense that the majority of Barbadians were sacrificing for a few. It was the other way around.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email: albertbrandford@nationnews.com