A Guy’s View: Fidelity and infidelity
When the subject of fidelity comes up, it is usually in connection with personal relationships. Our local experiences have given many of us a certain perspective on this aspect of our lives.
When it was recently disclosed that one of our beloved daughters was dating a member of Arab royalty, a WhatsApp message was widely circulated cautioning her not to “horn” the man, because horning has become a trademark of our lives.
When a storm passed two days ago, another message was circulated: “Tropical storm coming. Tie down all loose objects like ya” partner! There is no shortage of stories that tell how much our men trust their women and how little our women trust their men. So, we know what the word fidelity means, and what fidelity is not.
But this term is less common in the relations of nations. One American leader once famously said that America has no friends, only interests. Apparently, it was not only Caribbean people who did not get that memorandum. It seems that the South Koreans and the Japanese were asleep through all of this education.
This kind of thinking was manifested again in recent days when the President of the United States threatened to go to war against North Korea, although it is common knowledge that such a move would almost certainly mean the destruction of large parts of South Korea and Japan and the death of millions of people, all of whom are supposed to be American allies.
When the people of Guam contemplated what President Trump’s proposed war would mean for them, one saw both the foolishness of Americans who have made that rock their home and the practicality of the original people of Guam. It was amazing to watch a news story, reported in seriousness, one must assume, of a young man with a rifle shooting at wild animals from a safe distance, who pledged that they would take up arms to defend their island if there were an attack from North Korea. The North Korean leader had said that he was preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Guam by long range missile.
On the other hand, a young woman of a different ethnicity saw all the talk of war as evidencing that it was time for Guam to no longer be a colony of the United States. It seemed clear to her that the lives of her people were no more than pawns in a chess game played by others.
Perceived fidelity, or lack of it, is often the basis on which Barbadians make up their minds on who should lead them, or better put, manage this country’s affairs. Since ordinary Barbadians achieved the right to vote, the requirement of their approval has been how loyal they thought an administration would be to them.
This observation was made in a conversation recently when the prospects of each of our four or five political parties came up for discussion. It is enlightening to listen to persons of different political persuasions when they know that they can speak their minds without feeling pressured to demonstrate their positions for public consumption.
There was a time when Barbadians thought in terms of what was best for the country. The 2017 Barbadian was thought to be more self-centred and was less inclined to think in those terms. The fidelity they now demand, it seems, is to them personally rather than to the broader interests of the country.
One should hasten to add that this is not a view that was universally shared, but, while not owned by anyone in the group, it was generally believed to be true of others. Although that discourse did not consider it, the question may be legitimately raised as to how and when an administration’s loyalty to the country could become different from loyalty to the individuals who form the population.
As we contemplate the way forward for Barbados, the merits of capitalism versus socialism is more central to our deliberations than one may be willing to acknowledge. The selfishness of capital accumulation is part of who we are and modern capitalist aspirations are quite legitimate. It would be a little dishonest not to recognise that such aspirations were probably less prominent in earlier times only because they were not realistic goals for a lot of people. It was impractical to aspire to what one could probably not even imagine.
That is no longer the case. Most Barbadians now feel that there is nothing beyond their reach, except what they do not have the personal ability to go after. There is no longer the perception that the limitations that held back our parents apply to our children.
There was a time when our two dominant political parties defined their brand of politics in terms that were particularly instructive: one party practised the philosophy of democratic socialism and the other saw itself as practising social democracy. It is interesting that neither of them claimed capitalism as part of their portfolio, although there was never a time when Barbados was not a capitalist country.
The needs of our people demanded socialist programmes during the early stages of our development as a nation. Some may still look back with longing for the good old days of colonialism, but that state of being possessions of other people was characterised by the poverty of Barbados and Barbadians. The last fifty years were spent building a country and a people. Although missteps were certainly made along the way, those who managed our affairs during that period understood the needs of the people. They saw no divide between what was in the best interest of the general population and the country.
One may consider the view that those social programmes may have been kept in place too long, hence our current financial challenges. I beg to differ. However, it seems clear that they needed to be modifications a long time ago.
It is a badly misplaced idea that Barbados could properly continue to address the needs of its vulnerable population without means testing. It is imprudent to try to manage the scarce resources of our country, taking into consideration the needs of those that our social agendum was designed to assist, while disregarding the fact that there is less to give to the poor and vulnerable if we give equally to those who do not need our help.
We may never return to fidelity in our personal relationships, but we cannot afford not to have it from those who direct the affairs of the state. If our leaders are loyal to this nation, they will be loyal to all of us, especially those of us who are less able than the strong among us.