Submitted by Yardbroom
In recent comments Patrick Todd member of The Barbados Parliament made reference to the declaration of assets issue. I am not concerned with the words spoken by Patrick Todd in this submission, neither do I seek to defend him as he is well capable of taking care of himself. I will also leave the person to whom the remarks were addressed alone, as they are not the focus here. As reported in the Nation News published 24 December 2008, making a judgment on Patrick Todd’s comments Peter Wickham wrote:
… and our population has never demonstrated a belief that personal morality have anything to do with professional competence or personal integrity…
The above seems a straight forward type of statement if it is looked at in a superficial way but if looked at in context, quite a few questions are posed as Peter Wickham has brought to the table as evidence the weight of Barbados public opinion. I am not sure how he knows that because as far as I am aware the question has never been asked…but I will let that pass for the moment.
It is quite obvious that someone can be immoral and be very competent at what they do. With regard to integrity, the footing becomes a little unsure – in a political context – as integrity could mean: adherence to moral principles; honesty. I am not sure the average Barbadian would be happy with those in office if it could be proved beyond doubt that they were habitually dishonest.
I will leave Peter Wickham’s reasoning to ferment and move on to a hypothetical case.
Suppose we had a Prime Minister who was married and lived happily at home with his wife; he also openly had a 19 year old girl with two children in another household and a third lady safely ensconced as a mistress with another child in a separate abode.
His arrangement would not be illegal, the police could not come and arrest him. No doubt his level of professional and political competence could be very high indeed, but a Prime Minister who openly demonstrated such a cavalier attitude in the face of the Barbados public could not be sure he would continue to have a high level of popular support.
If you use the argument that the Barbados population have never demonstrated a belief on “personal morality”; could it be that the “degree of immorality” has not been high enough to question their loyalty. To use a minute level of immorality and to advance the argument it is “all embracing” seems very tenuous at the least.. My argument with the opinion that Peter Wickham has expressed is that the Barbados population might take a position on the “individual politician” and as a result of that view think they are not “suitable” for high office, despite their undoubted ability and competence.
This submission is not about Patrick Todd or another specific individual it is not even about Peter Wickham, it is about words used as the core of a belief which is purported to be in line with the Barbados population. I am inclined to believe that the view expressed by Peter Wickham has not been tested at a high enough level of personal morality and integrity, therefore I am not as sure as he seems to be…perhaps I am wrong.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.