A Guy’s View: The politics of hate and fear

On Wednesday last week, a number of persons associated with the Democratic Party in the United States were mailed pipe bombs. These included the Clintons, the Obamas and former Attorney General Eric Holder. Attorney General Holder may be of more significance to us because his roots are Barbadian and he still has blood relatives among us.

The Cable News Network (CNN) was also on the mailing list. The selected targets had one thing in common, other than being liberal philosophically – they were all identified by President Donald Trump as morally bankrupt or have openly opposed him in a strident way.

When journalists become hatchet wielders rather than professional reporters of genuine news, it is easy for persons like Trump to paint them as enemies of the people, but those who play this role are known to all and sundry and therefore may more sensibly be ignored than attacked.

It is the unfortunate norm in the western adversarial political arena for persons of opposing views to take pot shots at each other. What is new is the deliberate attempt by some political leaders to encourage hate and harm of persons who disagree with them.

Donald Trump may be the poster boy for this incivility, but it is not peculiar to him and is not confined to him. Around the world, it is now evident that this is an approach which has won favour with group leaders, whether in office or in opposition.

Access to international news in our homes makes it unnecessary to recite the many countries where this kind of behaviour has come to the fore, but it would be remiss of me not to mention what the Government of Saudi Arabia has allegedly done to a journalist who was critical of that regime. The luring of a critic into their embassy and killing and dismembering him is just the actualisation of the violence which is now advocated in political rhetoric.

The fact that Donald Trump’s fingerprints may not be found on the bombs that were mailed to Democrats and CNN does not mean that he was not responsible for them. He has engendered the kind of hatred and promoted admiration for violence against his opponents that led to these acts of terrorism.

His strategy of divisiveness has apparently infected us. The hate speech which is now a feature of our political space in Barbados also bears the palm-prints of political leaders, even if not their fingerprints, for the voice of the manipulated is the message of the manipulator.

Not more than a week ago, one peddler of hate was confronted on radio by a person who was seemingly in a position to know, with the assertion that he had been paid to attack people using the media. From what I was told, there was no dissenting response.

While hate mongers set out to instil fear in others, this is the one thing that they must never be allowed to do. Fear causes people to back away and leave more space for the wicked to expand their sphere of influence. No wholesome society can afford for this to happen.

When Nazism raises its head, it behoves all good people in the society to stand up against it. The consequences of not doing so are too dire. Observing from the sidelines will only mean that it is only a matter of time before your time comes to be cut down if you do not drink the Kool-Aid. That is neither a sensible nor sustainable existence.

And then there are the maximum leaders who use their public office to give effect to their personal preferences. In a country of laws, no person can have the right to use the public resources, whether it is the purse or other assets, to do their personal bidding. When we see these things, we know that they are markers of more dangerous things to come.

For example, a communications specialist who has never applied for a job in Barbados and whose only recommendation is that he helped the BLP to win the last elections, is now paid from the public purse to do what he was doing for the ruling party when it was in opposition. What secret acts may he be up to that could not be trusted to a regular public officer? Someone clearly believes that what is good for the party is better for the state. This is a wrong philosophy and is potentially dangerous.

It was reported last week that the Prime Minister promised a woman who recently lost her job that she will ensure that this woman continues to receive a salary until December and will further ensure that she is rehired in January. This is troubling on many fronts.

With whose money will this woman be paid until the end of December? Sorry, on second thought, not paid because she is unemployed. Whatever description is given to her funding, if what was reported was correct, this raises a troubling lack of respect for the rule of law. In a country of laws, no Prime Minister can decide to give money to anybody who is not employed by the state or otherwise qualifies for state assistance after an unbiased investigation of her circumstances by the relevant department which is tasked with this responsibility. The treasury is nobody’s piggy bank.

And, according to the reports, the Prime Minister will ensure that she is employed again in January. The report which I read did not indicate the training or skill set of the woman and her suitability for the digitisation exercise in which the Prime Minister sought to guarantee her employment. So employment has nothing to do with suitability for the job, only the wishes of the Prime Minister? And then we lambaste public servants for being incompetent and non-productive. How can they be if they are employed at the whim of a politician rather than their suitability for the jobs they are given.

The Parliament of Barbados enacted the Public Service Act which includes a “Recruitment and Employment Code” established by paragraph (a) of section 11(1) and set out in the First Schedule of that Act. That code governs the methods to be used in recruitment and promotion in the Service. There is no provision in that code for employment of anyone by the will of the Prime Minister. Does the rule of law still apply in Barbados?

These two incidents tell us that today, they have come for the Jews, and no one has said anything. Who will be left to complain when they come for you?