The Republic of Barbados – or not? Last night I blogged about the public opinion battle on the island of Barbados becoming a republic. There are really two arguments in this contest.
1. The head of State should be Bajan. The queen is a relic of a brutal and exploitative past and should be consigned to the garbage bin of history.
2. We’ve done very well under the present arrangement. The British Tourists like to come to a Commonwealth State (?) The queen is mostly symbolic. Anyway, there are the rest of us who wonder if all this fuss is really necessary. What will this changeover cost? And what do we get for the trouble.
Of course, the passions run high on this one (among the proponents of the the two camps). Either you are the hothead or you are the reactionary; and the discussion gets more and more heated with each go around. Here’s what I propose: Full Article
The one thing any reader can glean from notesfromthemargin blog is the concise way in which the message is always delivered.
No lotta long talk!
We find the Referendum topic to be interesting, simply because we have focused so much on the corruption within the government; the leadership struggle within the Democratic Labour Party, and the crossing of the floor by Clyde Mascoll. There appears to be a legitimate concern of the Barbados public — the brazen way Arthur lead Barbados Labour Party, it has failed to deliver on the issue of a Referendum to determine whether the country should go the way of a Republican system of government.
The notesfromthemargin blog is at this eleventh hour calling for a Referendum on the matter of going Republic, but of course we know that this is not realistic. The general elections lurking on the horizon have effectively ruled out any possibility of a referendum. The big question which BU must ask is, how could a Barbadian public be promised so much on such an important matter and not demand accountability on this issue? Can we expect that a BLP on the campaign trail will insert this as a warm over promise in its manifesto? BU is concerned about the casual way the promise to deliver a Referendum on the Republic issue was made; this is compounded by the lack of concern by an educated Barbadian public.
This piece seeks not to stress on the merits and demerits of Barbados going Republic but to highlight the inconsistency in the home affairs policy of the Barbados Labour Party. How can Arthur sell the concept of CSME and its attendant issues like movement of unregulated labor and capital as it seems, but on such a critical matter of delivering a Republican system of government, he has failed on the domestic front? Where is the credibility? BU lodges this accusation from acknowledging that Arthur is a man who confesses to believe in using symbols to create awareness and consciousness on who we are as a people. To his credit, some might say he introduced the National Heroes project i.e. naming national heroes, changing the name from Trafalgar Square to Heroes Square, planning to move Nelson, establishing the Pan African Commission, etc.
It seems to BU that back in the 60’s and 70’s, Barbadians would discuss the issues that effect us in the rumshops and social gatherings with more passion than we do today. The same way our interest appears to be waining about cricket, once a passion, the same thing appears to be happening regarding politics in Barbados. The quality of politician which is coming forward should cause Barbadians to be concerned. BU mean no disrespect to the politicians in parliament and the ones hoping to be elected, but the dearth of talent stepping forward must start to concern the undiscerning Barbadian.