A Guy’s View: One year on and counting

One year on, there are many lessons that may be taken from the management of our new administration. We now know that we have a Government of opposites. They promised transparency and openness, but we have dark secret deeds, starting from five days after being elected, if not before; they promised voters money in their pockets but instead, many have lost their jobs and those with jobs have less money in their pockets due to changed tax brackets and additional taxes; they railed against corruption, but one struggles to find an alternative explanation for some of the practices that are coming to light.

The May 24, 2018 election was a demonstration of the power of communication and media. It did not take long for Barbadians to recognise that all that glittered was not gold, but by the time of their awakening, the deed was done.

No Barbadian in his right mind would like to have a Government without opposition. There is good reason for the observation that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That, however, is not to say that Barbadians did not want to see a change of Government or should not have wanted that change. Hind sight is perfect vision, so we are now in a position to compare what we have seen over the last year with what went before, but at the time of the elections there was a very different narrative which drowned out all reason.

Barbadians were obviously dissatisfied with what they had and with what was offered to them if they had returned the Democratic Labour Party. In the circumstances, they had every right to vote for a change in Government. That is the beauty of democracy, and, all things being equal, when they are ready, they will give to the current administration what they gave to the last one.

This administration has made great use of propaganda and that will not change. In fact, given what we have seen and what is expected to come, all of the stops will have to be pulled out to persuade Barbadians to hang themselves. And some of us are quite willing to mount the gallows. One could expect election style campaigning right up to the next election. This will be crucial if they are to deflect people’s attention from what they are doing to this country.

Immediately on assuming office, the intention to look after family and friends was made clear. We thought that the Constitution was sacred until it did not permit what they wanted to do. It was a brilliant idea to start that process before people had awakened from the dizzying success at the polls. The talk of corruption was still ringing in the ear so no one wanted to believe what was coming from the fountain of purity. Most persons just grumbled under their breath.

And then there was the rush into the arms of the International Monetary Fund. Going to the IMF is usually a last resort for most Governments, but not for our new administration. The Opposition in Pakistan put in perspective what people around the world think of the IMF. Responding to that country’s Prime Minister’s announcement that he was about to borrow from the Fund, it described that decision as selling the people into slavery.

Any analogy to slavery should be especially potent for those of us who have not forgotten that that crime against humanity is somewhere in our not too distant history. Exposure to the conditionalities which often accompany IMF arrangements lends credence to the observation of the Pakistani Opposition.

An important public relations exercise was to rub the bellies of the leadership of the unions and put them to sleep. This was not difficult because they were all in the camp ahead of the elections, but promises must be turned into reality. So the 23 percent salary demands turned into 5 percent and all were happy, until it was realised that the salary increases resulted in persons taking home less money. The unionists were still happy, but not those who had followed them.

One consequence of the first year of this administration is the quickened march of labour unions to the cemetery. This is really not a surprise. The general membership of these organisations feel deceived and only the slow of thought will now remain in them. It is not unusual for unions to support political parties, but this is usually a relationship that is intended to benefit the workers, not despoil them.

Very early in its term, the Government started to shed workers, beginning with those it perceived to have been supporters of the former Government. It would have taken only a little thought to recognise that the majority of the people employed under the last administration voted against their employer. By simple analysis, many of those who were sent home voted to be sent home. Silence.

The ravaging of the workforce, coupled with the recognition by those who remain that their representatives walked them into their current precarious state, must result in a departure from unions. Workers now know that their interest is not being represented by their union leadership, so they may now use their dues to assist with the increases in bus fare and petrol. This year’s May Day activity evidences this.

In recent days, Barbadians have come to learn of the heavy cloak of secrecy that is at the centre of what this Government is doing. It took an international newspaper to bring to our attention that within five days of coming to office, this Government had signed a $54 million agreement with an advisory firm called White Oak. The legitimate question that must be answered is what due diligence and professional thought went into that agreement, within five days of coming to office. And if it were negotiated before, by whom and on what authority?

Any public officer who would have been involved in such a negotiation would have been exchanging information on this country’s finances with persons outside of the Government. This is a matter of grave concern. It is for this reason that countries pass legislation akin to Official Secrets Acts so as to prevent the sharing of a country’s inner workings with persons without the authority to handle that information.

One assumes that all senior public officers would have had to take the following oath:

OATH OF OFFICE AND SECRECY
I, (A.B), do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that devolve upon me by reason of my employment in the Public Service and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, in any manner whatsoever, publish or communicate any facts or expressions of opinion based on such facts that come to my knowledge by reason of such employment.

If this has been breached or is totally disregarded, what do we do next?