As a former student of social and political history, indeed a successful one according to the paper work they give you when you graduate, I believe the short answer to your question lies in the craving for ‘self’ of those currently in power, especially in the western hemisphere. There is certainly too much emphasis on instant self benefit. The people you are alluding to and specifically mention by name had one primary element in common. They all put their country first. Regardless of any retrospective criticism, justified or not, about their personal gain or their personal habits, they put the people first. Among today’s leaders any of those you refer to would be deemed unique, including Owen Arthur. I’m not so absolutely sure I’ll be saying the same thing about Owen Arthur II when the second coming is finally realised but, for the moment, he gets the benefit of any doubt based on the evidence of his overall past record. Whether you like him or not he is a Stesman. History, as the original post clearly reveals has a way of finally teasing out the facts – even if it’s too late to make a difference. Adams ‘quality’ is in precious short supply in this day and age and the only thing you can say in favour of those currently in public office is that they take a lot more crap from a far wider audience that those of the past. That may be a good thing overall but, unfortunately, it can be used to stifle those who are seen as too radical – as Barak Obama very quickly discovered. He rode to victory on a wave of massive popular local support but, as David noted the other day on a separate issue, not all publicity is necessarily supportive and, since further back than the Ceasars, the hoi polloi have been manipulated by propaganda: today, unfortunately this is a lot easier to do, hence the current quality of politician that caused the original question.

“Some men are born great….some men have greatness thrust upon them.”
Shakespeare.

Leaders are born and seldom made….Barbados can count itself blessed when it comes to the former.Those that had greatness thrust upon them somehow never rose to the occasion.He who once had to work to achieve his prominence, seemed to appreciate it more…..and not in for the tide when came the tide…..out like a spout when faced with a drought..

We await what Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart has to say about CLICO and REDjet in the Nation newpaper BIG INTERVIEW tomorrow.

Here is a link to the EMERA story:

http://news.barbadostoday.bb/barticlenew.php?ptitle=BL&P%20and%20BWU%20on%20collision%20course&article=15473

Can anyone recall there was a company back in Tom Adams or EWB reign which brought down a package of rules and regulations foreign to our established labor protocol. This company in Newton was sent packing on the next plane as ‘persona non gratis’ by the then leader in protection of the workers…Its called BALLS OF STEEL…Let’s see what will happen in this case ? LIME IS also watching…

correction; persona non grata

wait hold your horses The dirty rag has already covered both side of the fences by inference that PM is being asked”A few question,” well lets see how few is few and also in the same breath calls it “Abig interview” any how i like PM stuart is going to take a wait and see approach on this one. i am highly skeptical some thing seems a mist here!

Congratulations old onions boy, I did not know you were such a wordsmith, you can rival your boy Fumble any time. Good piece.

But wait, what hypocrisy am I seeing?? Fumble actually sat down to do an interview with the paper that is not a paper and that he does not read. What a hypocrite! I tell you, elections got to be around the corner.

Onions congratulated twice by such luminaries the likes of an Observer Miller and now Prodigal…for a fellow who deals all day with figures ( on the ladies also)….you all made my day..Thanks !
Ac..the wait shall not be in vain…

wouldn’t be surprised if they are exceprts from older articles which the Pm might have previuosly stated his position on a variety of differing issues and tossed in for good measure “A FEW QUESTION” for public insatiable appetite of wanting to know. i await NOT ” THE BIG INTERVIEW’

I wonder what the marks of ‘greatness’ are. Reading up the blogs just now I culled (1) intellectual superiority; (2) unselfishness; (3) having a ‘greatness’ gene; (4) having a global perspective; and (5) being a ‘people’ person

I vaguely remember some sort of poll in the UK years ago which revealed that people felt that John Lennon was something like 8th in the list of great English persons (out of 100) but he fell behind Princess Diana, who I think was 4th. So to the list above I suppose we should add (6) representing something new and wonderful which captures the imaginations of the young; and (7) popularity arising from being different (rare that one).

Does anyone care to add to this list?

I am yet to consider any of our previous leaders as great. However, I would classify them as good. Unfortunately, the present lot are devoid of a vision for this country. I think all of them would like Barbados to succeed and grow but they have no idea how to achieve that. They are just being swept along with the tide. All I can say to them is: lead, follow or get out of the way!

@Prodigal Son

Whether the PM likes the Nation or not it is the daily with the widest circulation which means he had little choice to use it to disseminate his message. It is all about publicity and trying to get reelected.

@An Observer

In the Big Interview tomorrow it would be interesting if PM Stuart was compelled to answer if Leroy Parris was a client.

@ David .
I believe that Prime Minister Stuart did previously state that Mr Parris was at some time a client of his . David it would probably shock some if it were revealed who else in the legal profession also held briefs for the same Mr Parris .

@ Caswell
Your excessive statements do not give you a chance to assess what IS GOOD about the modern crop . Unless you can accept that there has to be something good about the present crop of politicians you would be falling into the senseless proposition that there is nothing good about the PRESENT GENERATION OF PEOPLE FROM WHICH THE POLITICIANS COME . And you know that that proposition is RUBBISH . You try divorcing the politicians from the society that gave birth to them and get back to me .

@ Caswell
you would have to admit that coming at the time of our social history that he came , Sir Grantley Adams had a different task from that of Mr Owen Arthur in so far as laying the infrastructure for development in Health, housing and education was concerned . A mortgage was unknown to over 90 % of all Barbadians of the Adams era ; Arthur developed the mortgage facility to a point where mortgage became a word of common usage . How then would you be able to compare these two leaders when the demands for the development of the society were so different ? Do you think if you were to speak to your daughter / son about free secondary education she / he would have an appreciation of what it really meant to have to pay school fees and study with a ” home sweet home ” oil lamp ? A leader must ultimately be judged by the way he was able to address the demands of his CONTEMPORARY period . Any other assessment is an unrealistic assessment .

An Observer

The present crop of politicians are for the most part a bunch of self-serving individuals.who lack the capacity to carry this country forward. To use another cricket analogy, they would be hard-pressed to make a second eleven team. They are lots of people in Barbados that can carry this country forward, unfortunately they are not in Government. They have been crowded out by the jetsam and flotsam that now occupy the seat of power who in most cases could not make a decent living outside of Government. Check and see how many of them were unemployed or underemployed before they became the Government. That is one of the reasons if not the main reason why the Cabinet is so large.

By the way, ZR men, murderers, thieves, rapist and those confined at the Psychiatric Hospital are all products of this society, but I would not like them to form the Government. If the composition of parliament is the best that we can do God help us.

@ Caswell
” By the way , ZR men , thieves , rapists and those confined to the psychiatric hospital are all products of the society , but i would not like them to form the Government..”
Please don’t trivialise the argument ; this is a preposterous comment unworthy of someone of your intellect . You can do much better than this .

@ Observing , March 25 , 2012 at 2.43 am
” Using your yardstick , can we judge our current crop ” ?
Of course we can . Some are GOOD , some are BAD , some are downright MEDIOCRE like ALL of their predecessors who held public office before them . But you must not overlook the point that Caswell himself made . We had GOOD LEADERS ; there were no GREAT ones . I also disagree with that assessment . Another generation of Barbadians will have the opportunity of judging if any of the current crop did in fact achieve greatness ; were we ourselves to make the assessment we would be grossly UNFAIR . By the way , Caswell is from St Thomas . He should be able to tell us why the majority rated GREAT SIR GRANTLEY ADAMS left a legacy in St Thomas that No BLP candidate / representative has yet been able to redress . In spite of the fact that that parish / constituency has seldom left the control of the BLP , Allan View , a district in the parish , refuses to give the party its endorsement because of the perceived act of indiscretion which Sir Grantley committed . He defended a man who had shot a black boy who was caught climbing his coconut tree . The response by a BLP government to this albatross was to remove the Allan View district from the St Thomas Constituency and place it in ST JOSEPH which could better absorb the political backlash . You must visit that district one of these days and find out how the residents STILL fell about Sir Grantley . Not even the other great,
Mr Tom Adams could deal with it . It was he who moved it to St Joseph . Peace .

@ An Observer.. | March 25, 2012 at 1:24 AM |
“A leader must ultimately be judged by the way he was able to address the demands of his CONTEMPORARY period. Any other assessment is an unrealistic assessment.”

This general principle or maxim carries relevance when comparative analysis is made between leaders of one long bygone epoch with the current crop. When those making the comparison have experienced the manifestations of leadership of both periods (in living memory and what is currently on offer) then a reasonable judgment can be made about the “preferred or “greater” leaders.
For illustrative purposes let us take the West Indies cricket team: Many of the senior men on this blog with a keen interest in cricket would have experienced- either by observation or through heated debates- the old guard of the 60’s 70’s and even early 80’s (let’s use the team under Clive Lloyd for argument sake).
Can’t we therefore make an assessment that the current players in the West Indies team are a pack of jokers when compared to the Lloyd’s eleven? The current team, not withstanding the recent blip of success against a weakened Australia team, is an exceedingly pale imitation of the crop who proudly wore those colours under Viv Richards. They need to be disbarred from the court of cricket as faked jesters and ‘sent back to the drawing board to find out where they went and continue to go wrong’.

Even if we take “observer’s” premise to its logical conclusion, questions still need to be asked in order to get a more informed perspective or framework to judge the current leader(s). What are the most pressing contemporary demands or challenges facing the current crop of leaders? Are they the same that faced the Adams and Barrows of earlier times? Do the current crop of ‘people in charge possess the personal attributes and decision-making kills to handle these challenges and come up with solutions satisfactory to the majority of the population. Can we expect the Barrack court -awarded judgment, the CLICO promises and the growing debt burden to be resolved by the current jockeys riding in a blindfold race? Or would these problems be deferred to another generation of leaders whose more technologically savvy contemporaries would judge this existing crop of “mis-leaders” very harshly for leaving a millstone of debt around their necks and nothing to show for it: not even free education (no longer valued) and excellent health care (with HIV/AIDS and NCD’s about to decimate those of working age); or even chances of owning for themselves a piece of the rock with a house on top.

@CCC

You offtopic crap is plain for all to see.

Just to let you know in case you are think you are being smart.

@ Old Onion bags.
The ushering in of the rise of the middle class WAS NOT AN OWEN ARTHUR INITIATIVE ; he was the leader at the time who channeled the evolutionary process that was ongoing in respect of mass education , including tertiary education , higher wages which resulted from the continuous fight by the labour leaders of past generations , the availability of bank loans and mortgages which by then had become a very ordinary matter and so on . The point being made is that the process of governance is a continuum which successive persons who ascend the leadership steps may build on . When I discuss this business of ” leaders ” I lump ALL those involved in the process ; I have no intention of drawing a distinction between a B and a D.
The Cricket analogy drawn by the Miller is quite apposite except that in cricket the rules and practices which regulate the game have remained constant over the years ; what we now have happening in cricket may very well expose the difference in attitude taken up by modern players to deal with situations which are the same ones that confronted their predecessors . Maybe there is a different level of commitment being shown by the current crop even though the awards being reaped are substantially greater . On the other hand , You cannot tell me that a contemporary leader who has to grapple with an over materialistic population in the face of collapsing world economies is not presented with challenges OF A DIFFERENT KIND from one whose main challenge was satisfying those basic first-generation human rights of food , shelter and clothing . That is why i make the point that the manner in which a leader deals with his contemporary challenges must be the yard stick by which an assessment of him must be made . And it cannot be gainsaid that SOME CHALLENGES BY THEIR VERY NATURE PRESENT GREATER DIFFICULTIES . President Castro was prepared to let history absolve him; not the contemporary period laced with its prejudices . I remain faithful to the view that the assessment of leaders IS AN ACT OF RETROSPECTION, NOT INTROSPECTION . The judging of leaders must be by a process of LOOKING BACK , NOT LOOKING ACROSS .
We must be less harsh in the criticism of our leaders . BU subscribers, do you realise I am actually enjoying this discourse . Thanks to Caswell, David , the Miller , Old Onions and my almost – namesake ,Observing . Enjoy your Sunday . Peace.

Could this be and end of an epoch (Miller) ? How does one know these things ?
HAMLET ..again…(an Observer go luv this)..just adding a lil spice to embitter Carson.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp’d tow’rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

@ac

Actually it is not a Big Interview but a telephone interview by Ricky Jordon.

REDjet wants 8 million, the PM promises to sit with them to see what is practicable.

About CLICO and the forensic report he clarified that the FSC is not the PM and he has not received anay report. He states that the FSC as regulator is obviously considering the next step.

The issue tackled is government’s response to a meeting with the social partnership to address concerns raised by the social partnership. An Action Team is to be set up to [comprised of 5 peoplefrom labour, five from private sector and five from government.

On 25 March 2012 09:14, David wrote: > How do we define middleclass anyway? > > A six figure mortgage, 2 cars in the driveway and less than 2 months > salary on saving account? >