SEVERAL YEARS AGO, former Trinidad and Tobago prime minister Basdeo Panday uttered the now famous statement that “politics has a morality of its own” and as much as commentators were critical of the circumstances giving rise to such a statement, we must admit that it is easily one of the most honest admissions that a Caribbean leader has made.
Against this background, I have approached my analysis of politics with an abundance of realism which runs counter to the approach taken by idealists who think politics can be modelled after a Sunday School picnic. I therefore agreed entirely with the Prime Minister who recently told me that he would not allow himself to go like a turkey to thanksgiving and would do all in his power to prevail politically.
Central to this is an understanding that there is what could be elegantly described as a moral code that guides political actions or what could be more crassly referred to as “honour among thieves”. Politicians presumably understand what is honourable and dishonourable within their community and while there might be disagreements in terms of specifics, there is a “gentleman’s” understanding regarding the generalities. Such understandings have guided commentators and politicians alike as it relates to the actions of politicians that might otherwise be questionable.
One case was recently explored by the late Sir Frederick Smith as he related the manner in which Errol Barrow gave support to the South African anti-apartheid struggle, without the knowledge of his cabinet, or his American allies.
Similarly, we all now presumably understand and forgive Prime Minister’s Adams and Sandiford for telling us “all was well” in 1981 and 1991 and thereafter secretly striking agreements with the IMF to pursue restructuring programmes to rescue our economy which was clearly not well. In both instances one can understand why those leaders polished the truth to achieve political objectives and immediately thereafter set to work on the economic realities in pursuit of a significant national developmental goal and one can argue that all agreed on the “moral minimum”.
It is already clear and indeed becoming clearer each day that the Freundel Stuart administration is entirely redefining the acceptable moral minimum in politics by way of actions that are entirely unprecedented and will have a profoundly negative impact on our development.
In this context, we can therefore understand the behaviour of this administration at the political level in their successful re-election campaign. Arguably their promise “not to send home a single worker” was no different to Sandiford’s statement that the Barbados economy was “batting like Sir Garfield Sobers” in 1991 if it was followed by an early and comprehensive programme to ensure that a significant economic objective could be reported by the time of the next election. Such was the case in 1991 when Sandiford took brave and unpopular actions to secure IMF cover for a programme that raised significant foreign exchange.
The most recent Estimates debate and the response of Prime Minister Stuart clarified several assumptions, not least of which is the fact that Stuart is clear in his mind that there is no economic crisis and moreover there is nothing politically for him to fear. To be sure, all is well politically and economically in his mind and he is proceeding towards the 2018 election when it falls due and not a moment sooner. In February of 2018 Stuart will have etched his name on history’s page as the fourth longest serving Prime Minister of this country.
He would have served longer than three of his predecessors including Sir Lloyd who will perhaps be remembered more fondly for understanding the moral minimum required that he act decisively to save our economy.
Sandiford’s approach was controversial but his tenure was characterised by bravery and a lack of indecision which are two important qualities of leadership. In contradistinction, Stuart will be remembered as a leader who won and secured his post because of people’s fear of others. He is one who understands that if he is to achieve this objective, he would best be advised to continue ignoring the larger economic reality that he has ignored since taking office. In all this, the question, of course, is the impact of his indecision on us.
We will pay a high price for his tenure which continues to be characterised by indecision, inaction and a profound lack of leadership.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: [email protected]
