“To be, or not to be – that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.”
In discussing matters that relate to the political acts or omissions of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, it often seems appropriate to commence one’s reflection with a classical reference. In this instance I have borrowed from the most classic of writers, William Shakespeare, who penned the above comment in the play Hamlet.
The relevance of this excerpt lies in one of the many interpretations, which is the often-disputed suggestion that Hamlet was reflecting on his “options”, which were to “blow in the winds” of fortune or to assume a more activist role in the hope of “ending” one’s troubles. Hamlet was perhaps more fortunate in that the issue of “nobility” had greater value in his dilemma than it would have in the political context of any decision that Mr Stuart might need to make.
At the risk of digressing, one might argue that Mr Stuart has already convinced the vast majority of us that he is both decent and noble. However, he would also do well to remember that the proverbial “trash heap” of politics is well populated by political actors who were also noble and decent. The logical question therefore is: What is the Prime Minister’s objective?
Is it to suffer the “slings and arrows” of political fortunes, all the while convincing us of his “nobility”? Or is it to “take [up political] arms” in opposition to his critics in the hope that he can face frontally the “sea of troubles” that his party faces and “end them”?
In reference to Patrick Hoyos’ contribution last week, another journalist recently asked if I agreed that his “assault” on the Prime Minister had gone too far, and if I thought he was “disrespecting” Mr Stuart by suggesting that he should read the CLICO forensic audit report and “weep”. In response, I think “the question” (to borrow from Hamlet once more) should be whether the Prime Minister’s stance was disrespectful to the thousands of Barbadians who are depending on his Government to resolve this issue and therefore if it was politically wise for him to react in this manner towards such a large block of voters at this time.
The Prime Minister’s approach to governance thus far has convincingly demonstrated his preference for the “noble” high road and, indeed, his willingness to sacrifice the more lowly business of political leadership which his Democratic Labour Party (DLP) has been excluded from between 1994 and 2008. Presumably, my colleague Pat might be less aware of this “preference” and would therefore think he might “weep”.
To be sure, Pat, Mr Stuart will neither weep now nor later since, as he has stated, he already knows he will be beatified in his political after-life in the same way that both Prime Ministers Sandiford and Thompson were. It is therefore more important that he gets on with the important business of meeting Raúl García, who is singularly more fortunate than thousands of Barbadians who wish for a moment of the Prime Minister’s time.
In the event that it is not by now clear to readers, I am thoroughly convinced that it was most unwise for the Prime Minister not to have read the forensic report the moment it was in the public domain and, moreover, to have been ready with a public reaction and, indeed, political strategy to address the sensitive issues that were presented. I consider his arguments about him not being given a copy of the report officially a feeble defence partially because I appreciate how easy it would have been for him to receive a copy as Prime Minister and also because I am somewhat unsure that the auditors were obligated to officially inform Government since they report to the courts.
The method of delivery is of little consequence when the information presented is explosive. The DLP should be painfully aware of this since in 2008 it pummelled the Barbados Labour Party with innuendo arising from another forensic investigator’s report, which one would imagine was not delivered officially to the DLP either.
The only point of departure between Pat Hoyos and myself would be the extent to which he (and most other commentators) are prepared to accept carte blanche the obvious implications of financial “hanky-panky” being drawn from the report. I have read the auditor’s conclusions both in THE NATION and in the context of the original report (yes, I also have a copy) and note the cautious reaction of David Thompson’s political and legal colleagues. However, I am hesitant to conclude that the absence of a reasoned defence thus far equates to an incitement.
While I don’t think that the former prime minister “walked on water”, I am hesitant to condemn him without “him” being given an opportunity to present his case, consistent with the legal maxim audi alteram partem. One appreciates the obvious challenges here, but there is still the need for the other side of this issue to be ventilated, especially since Thompson’s incitement appears to be based on statements made to the auditors that might require further interrogation.
Regardless of political affiliation, it is difficult not to see the potential damage that the management (or lack thereof) of this ongoing CLICO issue can do to the image and electability of this DLP Government.
This issue is explosive in and of itself and the Prime Minister’s response thus far has done little to help the situation. We now hear that Government has been officially provided a copy of the report and one can only hope that it will quickly be read, digested and some guidance offered by the state on how we should treat to these issues.
It is useless to hope that CLICO will cease to be a political football since that is fanciful thinking outside of an election year, far less inside of one. We can, however, hope that out of this mess will arise some superior supervisory capacity that would enhance our governance in years to come. Certainly, if the DLP’s politics cannot benefit from this mess, we can only hope that its governance will.