It was pleasing to receive the Barbados Government Information Service (BGIS) release on April 20 that outlined what Prime Minister Freundel Stuart would be doing in Washington this week.
If memory serves me, it was the first time since Stuart came to office that the media were thoroughly informed beforehand what he was planning to do on the overseas trip, and whom he was scheduled to meet and when. Details about the nature of the discussions were also given.
This was a step in the right direction and was long overdue.
Barbadians, through the media, should always know what our elected representatives are up to whenever they go on overseas assignments. Such information lets the people know what is being done, or what agreements are being signed, on their behalf.
Most important, it makes these officials accountable, and this is needed if we are to deepen the process of governance here and have greater transparency in Government.
Similarly pleasing about that BGIS release was the revelation that Richard Sealy would act as Prime Minister during Stuart’s absence from the island.
Too often the media, and by extension, the country, are only aware that the substantive minister is overseas on Government business when another member of Cabinet substitutes for that person at an event.
Such is not good enough but has, unfortunately, become the hallmark of this Government.
I say unfortunately because this Government promised to be forthright and transparent with information. It promised, among other things, to have weekly post-Cabinet Press briefings to keep the public abreast of discussions so that the average man and woman could feel they had a stake in what was happening in this country.
However, this Government has failed to implement these plans. Again, if memory serves me well, it has not even held at least five of those post-Cabinet briefing sessions since 2008.
This is important because the Owen Arthur administration, in its last years in particular, was not forthcoming with information on policy decisions and plans, which made the public feel left out of the governance process. This was one of the major reasons why people wanted a change of administration.
The present Government, despite its promises and the goodwill it enjoyed on assuming office, has not taken the country into its confidence as it should. It is this lack of communication that is hurting its image.
The perfect example of which I speak is the background to Stuart’s continuing sojourn in Washington. It is part of his efforts to show that this trip to the United States capital to meet with the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was nothing more than a courtesy call, following the question I asked in this space on April 11, Why Is Freundel Going To IMF?
I asked this question against the background of:
• the four not so reassuring IMF statements on the Barbados economy between last September and this January;
• the fact that Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler normally led discussions with the IMF and if he had been competently doing so, why was the Prime Minister seemingly getting involved – unless what was on the cards had to be handled by someone above the level of minister?;
• if it was nothing more than the usual spring meeting of the IMF and World Bank that Stuart was headed to, why did he have to go since Sinckler had handled these meetings competently in the past? and;
• if nothing untoward was afoot with the IMF, was this a case of Stuart becoming more hands-on in his approach to the management of the country?
In the absence of specific information on the trip and given this background, the question was a legitimate one.
Instead of laying out the facts in a transparent manner to assure the public, Government’s initial response the following day under the headline Nation Column Is Baseless And Inflamatory was, to be blunt, silly. That release stated in part:
“A senior Government representative has categorically denied that Prime Minister Freundel Stuart is leaving the island to have official talks with heads of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
“The individual, who has asked to remain anonymous and who was at the time responding to a story carried in yesterday’s DAILY?NATION, said the Prime Minister had been invited to address the International Conservation Caucus Foundation’s Congressional Gala in Washington . . . .”
If the column was so misleading and inflammatory, why would the Government official quoted not want to be named? Why was he or she hiding behind the cloak of anonymity?
Government needs to recognize that it can only endear itself to the public’s confidence by being forthright, transparent and proactive.
If the Government continues on the present path, it will neither win friends nor gain influence.
