The temptation is great, I must confess, to ‘go after Clyde Mascoll’. His comment in relation to just concluded salary and wage negotiations for public officers was ‘ludicrous’, in my view. I promised several months ago not to read or comment on anything in the realm of politics that Clyde Mascoll says, writes or does. There is nothing personal or vindictive about that decision. I simply cannot fathom the political character and image that he has created of himself.
Throughout my childhood and adult life, I drew inspiration from the adage that if one did not stand for something, one would fall for nothing/anything. There are few instances where the accuracy of that statement has been more profound and appropriate than in the political career of Clyde Mascoll. Many have crossed floors and made partisan, political about turns before and since, but none in as “classless” a fashion as has Clyde Mascoll.
I dare say that that solitary career might be the cause for an entire generation of eligible voters in Barbados and the wider Caribbean totally withdrawing from the process. Cynics of politics were given all the ammunition they will ever need to wage a campaign against voting and participation in the electoral process. Physically leaving one party as Opposition Leader one day and joining another party as junior minister the next day is one thing. Criticizing Gems and Jaws one day and defending them the next is another. Even embracing and defending individuals whom one said were ‘not good for the political neighborhood’ is understandable; in the context of traditional opportunistic politics. But, using one’s professional and academic grounding to justify the most outrageous of political assertions is totally untenable.
In this business of politics, it is all over when one ceases to separate the forests from the trees. How in Heaven’s name, as my Great Aunt would say, could a trained economist, living in Barbados in the year of our Lord 2008, with all that is going on around us globally, chastise a government and particularly a union for settling for a double digit increase in salaries and wages?
The global recession, we are being told, is about to envelop us. The blow out of energy prices was but a few months ago and even though current prices are at a 14-month low, no one seriously expects they will remain there. The political situation in the United States, Great Britain, Southern and Eastern Africa, the Far and Middle East is so volatile that missing a night’s television news could be denying oneself a front row seat in history, as entire administrations and leaderships are precariously perched and falling without prejudice.
This is not the economic environment for one to go down the wicket and swipe. Indeed, a government of Barbados, less confident in and of itself, could easily and with good reason have proposed a deferral of salary and wage negotiations until visibility of the immediate economic horizon improves.
For years we have talked about social partnerships and the need for stakeholders to wrap focus, efforts and energies around the flag. Now a union, and I am reliably informed a confederation of trade unions and staff associations, has decided it would be in the national interest for wage and salary negotiations to be tempered with a dose of pragmatism, up steps this political pipsqueak with the most bizarre of submissions.
His contention is that the settlement came too quickly; that the unions should have dug in their feet, that they should have held the government over a barrel and, I am saying, be drowned.
What would it profit the Barbados Labour Party in the event of this country grinding to a halt? Why would one wish for industrial unrest in this global environment? Is this the level to which our politics in Barbados has sunk? I take great satisfaction and relief in the fact that to date not a single mouse has come out in support of Mascoll’s submission.
I honestly do not believe that Mascoll’s position is that of the BLP. As usual, I suspect he spoke without thinking or without being briefed by his colleagues. I do not believe Owen Arthur, Billie Miller, Mia Mottley or any of the stalwarts of that party would have sanctioned such an outrageous comment. Indeed, it is not in keeping with the history or record of that party. But what does Mascoll know about the history or record of the BLP? The BLP was but a vessel used to transport oneself from the political wilderness to political opportunity.
It would do that party well to stipulate henceforth that such outlandish comments be funneled through the policy arm of that organization. It is not in the interest of the Labour Party to acquire an image of wanting power so badly that it would wish bad for the country.
A more generous settlement at this time would have been reckless and irresponsible. It would have done irreparable damage to the image of Barbados in the context of fiscal prudence and management. Standards and Poors was quick to make that point.
Clyde Mascoll is chancing his luck with Barbadians. His political career is comatose. He should guard against doing further damage to his professional standing.
Hartley Henry is a Regional Political Strategist. He can be reached at hartleyhenry@gmail.com
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.