I share the shock, sadness and outrage of all Barbadians at the Tudor Street disaster, in which six persons perished. I urge all Barbadians to pause and prayer at noon tomorrow, Friday, for the souls of those who died as well as for a cessation of such dastardly acts in this country of ours.
One positive feature of this whole episode was the manner in which all interest groups spoke in unison in their condemnation of the cowardly act that is purported to have triggered the fire. That sounded like the Barbados I once knew!
I say this because repeatedly in my writings over the past six years I have made the call for civil society to stand up and tell it like it is. We have moved away from the tradition of speaking openly and objectively on issues of concern to our people. Few persons who actually speak today can be classified as not having an agenda, and this is woefully unfortunate.
I have spent the past few weeks away from Barbados and it was refreshing to read newspapers and watch television discussions and talk shows and hear people speaking from the heart and from objective professional and philosophical perspectives. In parts of Europe and the United States certain commentators are known for their natural partisan, ideological and or ethnic bias, but yet there are others who can be relied upon to analyze the facts and give an unbiased opinion. That’s why I enjoy reading certain foreign newspapers. It’s perhaps why I also shun Fox News and CNN’s coverage of partisan, political events.
But, back to Barbados, I commend those who have spoken up and out against this most recent act of terrorism against our country. I agree with former Prime Minister Owen Arthur that it was an act of terrorism. On matters such as these and in circumstances such as this, Arthur can be relied upon to accurately reflect and articulate the sentiment of the majority. This is the human Owen Arthur. But then, put him in Parliament or on a platform, before a microphone and he becomes Arthur the politician. And therein lays the contradiction.
There was a time in our not too distant past when political figures such as Errol Barrow, Richie Haynes, Henry Forde, Bernard St. John and others of that vintage could be relied upon in moments of national crisis to rise above partisan rhetoric and inform, enlighten and educate Barbadians about what was going on at home, in the region and farther afield. Please pardon my failure to affix official prefixes but in the context of their robust political personalities, I would wish to refer to them as we knew them.
Sitting from across the political divide, when Bernard St. John or Henry Forde spoke on matters of national interest and concern, no one on our side had to check to see whether they were telling the truth or whether they had taken anything out of context. We knew they loved Barbados and we knew when they entered a public discussion they were motivated in the main by a desire to procure and secure what was best for Barbados. If they said the economy was in trouble and we needed to check ourselves as a country, Errol Barrow or Erskine Sandiford did not argue, because they knew that such advice was well intentioned and rooted, if not in fact, in analyses thought to be correct.
None of these was celebrated economists. They may have dabbled in their college years in some form of economic training, but none professed to be ordained by the Almighty as an Economic expert. But today, I can think of two self proclaimed economic wizards actively involved in the politics of Barbados, whose pronouncements on economic matters are taken with a grain of salt by more than half the population.
I do not know whether Clyde Mascoll understands what he did to the image of the profession of economic theory in Barbados when he did his political somersault a few years ago. I do not think he understands the irreparable damage that was done to the credibility of economists when one day he told us one thing and a week later his actions led us to believe another. I do not know if Owen Arthur understands the damage that was done to his image two years ago when in the Estimates Debate he “put down” a speech that made even the then Governor of the Central Bank speak out in annoyance. Do you recall that gloom and doom presentation, where we were not supposed to make it through that fiscal year?
I have made specific reference to these instances because it is really unfortunate that it is only in tragedies such as that which occurred in Tudor Street last Friday that our opinion leaders can come together and focus on what is best for Barbados and determine right from wrong. It should not take tragedies such as this for us to benefit from the calm, sober, unbiased perspectives of our leaders. Any reporter in this country should be able to pick up a phone and interview any trained economist, lawyer, accountant, engineer or businessman and get an unbiased, factual perspective on matters of national importance. But, not so today! Eight out of ten persons who speak or write is recognized by the society as having an interest or an agenda and this takes away from the essence of what they are saying, even if what they say is rooted in fact. Take the economy for example. Joe the Plumber must be confused by all the partisan, political rhetoric that passes for economic discussion in Barbados today. The type of diagnoses and prescriptions that have been made over the past two and a half years would make anyone with a few dollars withdraw them from the bank and bury them under a tree. The debate on our economy has lost its way. Joe the Plumber no longer knows who to believe. If you see a person walk to a microphone, nine out of ten times you can tell what they are going to say based on their partisan, ideological or financial status. That, I maintain, is woefully unfortunate. The society is suffering as a result.
Politicians are not the only ones to blame in this regard. There is also the Church, the business community, the hotel and tourism association, the small business association, the consumer body and the list goes on. Society can tell the motivation behind the pronouncements of a significant percentage of those who speak for and on behalf of those organizations. This, I maintain, is most unfortunate and a sad, sorry blotch on our country.
Oh for a return of objective, unbiased commentary in this our native land.
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.