This country needs a think tank in which serious-minded people of differing political persuasions, or indeed no political persuasion, can talk about serious issues without unfounded accusations that the discussion is nothing more than the individuals pushing partisan political perspectives.
I am not suggesting the castration of political argument, but issues fundamental to the nature of the society in which we live are arising daily and serious informed comment on them is not taking place to the detriment of this society which is a mere 44 years old.
For example, events in the Middle East are of seminal importance to us, and not only because we consume oil to fuel our way and style of living, but because our way of life is rooted in democracy and constitutional freedoms.
Thus every stone thrown by a disgruntled Egyptian is a grim reminder that people may be ruled by and with their consent or by force, but that those who rule with the people’s consent have a greater permanence than those who rule by force.
But no island is an island; and so our cost of living will be adversely affected by increases in the cost of oil if the mid-eastern problems result in higher oil prices – which may or may not then be blamed on price gouging, or on any “unholy alliance” between the Government and the merchants of Bridgetown!
That is not the only issue which arises and affects us. Very few businessmen with investments in Egypt can be having restful nights, since political instability in any country affects its businesses, for confidence in the political structure of a country is a necessary foundation upon which entrepreneurs can calculatedly risk their money.
In Barbados our political system has hitherto been stable, and indeed that is one of our major selling points in international circles. But we need to pay attention to minor cracks in the political structure and discuss and repair them before too long.
The rumblings in both our political parties are, in one sense, par for the course. Leadership changes of one kind or another since 2008 have propelled new leaders to the fore, and while rumblings are internal matters that require internal solutions, they are of immense public interest.
A two-party system requires two united and stable parties making point and counterpoint in the national interest with the fourth estate of the realm, otherwise known as the Press, mediating the issues and coming down on the side of the public interest.
A question for dispassionate discussion therefore is where do the people go if and when they are fed up with the Government of the day, but feel that the alternative party has “issues” either in reality or in perception?
In dictatorships as in Egypt, they take to the streets and throw stones, and risk their lives, and hope that the army understands and is on their side, because there is no other way. In our neck of the woods, there is always a safety valve – the next election – and in the meantime people exercise their democratic freedoms and criticize freely, and make up their minds and wait for “one day coming soon” to choose who will serve them.
Political parties therefore have major responsibilities. When leadership changes, in midstream so to speak, the task is more acute, especially if the party is in Government. Then the need for rational public debate is greater, the more so when there is a perception that the country is going nowhere fast, or that the earlier policies might have been wrong. Opposition parties can only talk; parties in Government have to act.
Take another example – the deficit. It is a live problem and while the Opposition may say, correctly as it happens, that it has to be tackled, it is the Government that has to do it. And when the Governor of the Central Bank says, as he did recently, that spending must be cut, the Government may, if it wishes, ignore his “advice” if it feels that alert minds might divine from that statement that the Democratic Labour Party’s policies on spending were wrong and make political capital from that finding!
Dispassionate discussion on such a topic will not preclude Government from pursuing its policy options, but it might enlighten the public whose material prosperity and other interests, as well as those of our business enterprises large and small, are inextricably bound up with the policy decisions made by Cabinet.
But the deficit is not the only issue, nor are all them of an intensely political nature. How to balance the competing demands of an open and small society for freedom of expression and information against the protection of a person’s reputation are equally demanding issues for public discussion.
And there are others. Some may say that a think tank may not be the solution, but a forum for non-partisan discussion about the pressing matters of the day is a must. The issues are pressing!