Submitted by Observing

In 2020 voters turned out in high numbers and groups merged to ensure that Trump would not be President again. They succeeded. Regardless of political view, there will still always be a 40% of America that will vote for Trump. Despite the 2022 unity, the cohesion on the Democratic side though is not so certain.

Back at home the electorate voted in 2018 to get rid of an incompetent bunch. 60% of Barbadians decided enough was enough and they spoke with their X.

In 2022 though only a few spoke, despite the fact that the issues of the day were just as weighty and critical as 2018. So what does this mean???

Simply put, many of us have become dull, turned off and apathetic. The systems built to give us voice are disappearing and so too are our voices. The Constitutions, norms and traditions that kept those who seek power in check no longer do so. Heck, we can’t even agree on whether a Senate with 18 people is legally constituted!

But worse….when we become numb to 400 – 600 Covid cases and 2 or so deaths a day, what next.
When the society that used to care simply doesn’t in the same regard, what next.
When drugs, murders, gun violence become normalised, what next.
When those who lead pay lip service to integrity and consultation but continue to act with impunity, what next.

I posit that Freundel fatigue, followed by economic fatigue, followed by Covid fatigue has lashed us as a public into sitting silently whether we want to admit it or not. That silence has led others to act and behave in ways that we do not agree with but we do or can do nothing about.

In another thread I spoke about the 5-year delay in being able to call our public leaders to account. The inability to seat opposing voices in Parliament along with the toothlessness of the Public Accounts Committee/Auditor General and the slothfulness of the Freedom of Information and Integrity Legislation essentially places us the same place we were 15-20-30-40 years ago. We have more technology, media, more blogs, more posts more threads but less meaningful discourse and action.

And so we remain at the mercy whims, fancy and hopeful integrity of those who lead or those who hold power and or money.

Donna asked sometime what type of leader I wanted.

First of all, we get the leaders we deserve. At all levels. Volunteer groups, fraternal organisations, trade unions, political parties and by extension government. Leaders can only lead those who allow them to lead.

Secondly, those leaders operate how they think is best with abandon UNLESS those who they lead speak up, which often times, they don’t.

Thirdly, those who CAN lead, often choose NOT to simply because they realise the futility at times of being sensible, pragmatic, honest, intelligent in a world or society where glitz, glamour, sweet talk, money and “cuh dear” brings popularity, votes and ascension up whichever ladder you happen to be on.

We are in a catch 22.

We want the real leaders to stand up, but, when they do, we place them on a pedestal and then try to knock them down.
We ask for transparency, integrity and honesty, but we revel in, celebrate and look the other way at leaders who are the opposite unless it directly impacts us.
We demand that our voices be heard yet we do not let our chords of concerns and criticism come forth.

We can only therefore look forward to the day when our desires match our words, our words match our actions and our collective actions match what society, this generation and future ones need.

Until this happens, we will be spinning tot in mud. Again and again and again.
We shouldn’t only come together to get rid of Freundel. We should come together to keep all decks on the ship of state sailing in the direction we want them to.

Only then will we see true development and true growth.

Our leaders aren’t the problem. The problem is us.

97 responses to “The Problem is us”


  1. @ Tron February 9, 2022 12:32 PM
    (Quote):
    Our Supreme Leader will release the seal of Judgment Day and turn Barbados into a Kingdom of Heaven. Normally people say that the sky is blue, but here it is red.
    I can already see the Hyatt glowing behind the Trident at the Garrison!
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    In that case, Kingmaker Tron, you ought to rechristen that imaginary hotel and- in its final reincarnation- call it the Mottley Mausoleum of Athena in honour of your Supreme Leader all painted in yellow, red and blue-black.

    If the Freedom Park could be constructed so quickly to coincide with the arrival of the New Republic called RoB why can’t that eponymous hotel be erected to mark the financial demise of Malmoney?

    Don’t you think it’s high time your Constitutionally omnipotent Supreme Leader take matters into Her Own Majesty’s hand by renaming the Queen’s Park the ‘E.D. Mottley Cultural Centre’ to recognize the ‘brilliant’ contribution that patriarch made to the city of Bridgetown.


  2. @David
    Let’s see which justice takes it up and how it is dealt with!
    Recently cases against the government have simply been “tossed out”

    Just observing


  3. @Observing

    What are you suggesting about our Justice System?

    You should not worry, there is the CCJ.


  4. not suggesting, simply stating!!!!!!

    My post says it all regarding the need for “us” to do what “we” need to do.

    This post made the rounds today as well. Food or thought.

    https://nationnews-brb.newsmemory.com/?publink=09823a8ee_1348355

    Just Observing

  5. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @David that’s excellent re the Brathwaite court challenge. It will ideally bring this to a conclusion, From my spot in the bleachers I would be quite surprised however if the Parliamentary session is brought is deemed as ‘unlawful’ assembly if it’s goes to CCJ.

    From a political perspective it is interesting that the DLP did not have an amicus brief … they have clearly signaled that they are wary of the legality issues of the offer but it seems that the constitution of the chamber itself is less a concern.


  6. @Dee Word

    Even if it is deemed unlawful what are the options available to government?

  7. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @David February 9, 2022 3:43 PM

    Serves the PM right for going against the voter’s will and trying to give the DLP some sort of voice in parliament. The voters knew better than the PM why they gave them zero seats and now she knows why too.

    A better amendment to the constitution would have to add a 31st seat to the Lower House for Leader of the Opposition and appoint the losing candidate with the highest number of votes as Leader of the Opposition.

    Changing the constitution to recognise party is a danger change when the constitution goes to great pains to not recognize party affiliation.


  8. @CA

    It maybe more complicated. Did the electorate in the FPTP system intend to vote for 30 although it worked out that way?

  9. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @David February 9, 2022 4:54 PM

    It matters not. We only vote for a representative for our own constituency, not a party representative or minister. The political party system has co-oped, corrupted and made a mockery of the whole system.

    We voted for the 30 best representatives, period. If we question the wisdom and will of the voters to choose their own representative, we might as well not have elections an go back to a monarchy.

    If the DLP wanted to bring a motion, they should have brought one against the disenfranchisement of the COVID isolated.


  10. @David February 9, 2022 4:54 PM “It maybe more complicated. Did the electorate in the FPTP system intend to vote for 30 although it worked out that way?”

    What kind of question is this David?

    I didn’t consult with anybody, not even he who shares my pillow, before casting my vote.
    So how can you or me or anybody else know what the electorate intended, when we did not even tell close family what our intentions were?

  11. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @David re “Even if it is deemed unlawful what are the options available to government?”

    Being ruled unlawful would be a MAJOR problem, embarrassment, constitutional crisis call it what u like.

    A question I would pose : is the fact that ALL our senators are appointed a differentiating factor re that Irish Senate chamber of 49 elected and 11 appointed??

    I accept that the word ‘shall’ does mean the same thing regardless but appointees and electees are quite different animals!

    Anyway, off to the lawyers.

    The line n the judgment quoted above does say : “If a literal interpretation of one provision might bring it into conflict with the literal meaning of another provision, then it is legitimate to resort to the harmonious approach with a view to interpreting both provisions in a way which avoids inconsistency.”

    Can we argue away the position that our constitution sought harmony of representation and never intended that our selected upper chamber should never disable governance with a literal interpretation of a 21 seat Senate.

    …Off to the Lawyers!

    I gone.


  12. @CA @SimpleSimon

    There has been enough qualitative and quantitative work done by pollsters to support people vote for many reasons.


  13. @Dee Word

    The 2018 Senate was constituted one short, why no challenge then?


  14. I warned u people that they were silent voices awaiting the outcome of this mess orchestrated by Mia for self interest
    Meow the cat jump out the bag
    Carry on smartly next the CCJ


  15. How many senators were appointed in 2018? Anybody answer yet?


  16. Today I am doing cartwheels jumping hoops
    Thinking that the highest law in the land would be finally get a voice to be heard
    Yes I am praying for an outcome one that would send a message to Mia her actions and utterances are not above being challenged in the court of law
    Being in the wilderness is not a disgrace
    However a PM that would set out by use of political interference deception and theatrics all with indifference to what is constitutional correct makes a mockery of democratic laws and it’s purpose and usefulness towards good governance
    As I once said the Constitution is not a plaything
    It is an instrument founded not only on legal guidance but moral guidance as well


  17. You mean like when it was changed just so an unqualified, who also proved to be incompetent, Chief Justice could be appointed by the the same Adriel Brathwaite? If I were the PM all now one of my 30 would be outside State House.


  18. @Enuff

    Who you recommending, Cynthie?


  19. @ Miller February 9, 2022 1:59 PM

    Athena! What a beautiful comparison!

    Yes, Mia Mottley is our black Athena. Just as Martin Bernal foretold in his trilogy. She brings light into the darkness, she is the beacon for a better future. I have always suspected that you are a secret admirer of our Supreme Leader.

    If Hyatt Corp. doesn’t want to take the financial risk, my advice is to simply tap into the NIS. After all, that’s a tried and tested method of redistribution from black to white. LOL.

    No, seriously. The project is deader than dead. I heard this in the presence of the Lord of the Island, in the presence of Lord Maloney. Hell will sooner freeze over behind the Trident at the Garrison than the Hyatt will be built in the next two or three years.

    With this statement I once again prove my total neutrality on BU.

  20. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @David th6at a very pertinent question and one sure to be raised in court even if nuanced differently…

    Namely, ‘is that Parliamentary period now null and void’!…. Or ‘if governance was accepted as validly constituted then … why not now’.

    The latter would be a persuasive point if judges are of the view that a necessity model makes more sense.

    If they are persuaded by Mr Patterson this will be a real conniption… for a few months at least…. Presuming the entire last parliament isn’t upended.

    Lata.


  21. Read ePaper
    Home / Local News / Former AG files constitutional motion over Senate makeup
    Adriel Brathwaite
    Former AG files constitutional motion over Senate makeup – by Kobie Broomes February 9, 2022
    Former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite Q.C. wants the law courts to make a determination on whether the Senate has been properly constituted.

    The senior lawyer is represented by attorneys Garth Patterson, Q.C. and Michelle Russell who have filed a constitutional motion seeking the intervention of the Supreme Court to make a ruling on the matter.

    In a statement released this afternoon, he contended that the Upper House is not fully constituted, with only 18 of the 21 members appointed so far, and therefore the Parliament is not fully constituted.

    However, the former AG in the last Democratic Labour Party (DLP) administration insisted the move was not politically motivated.

    Below is his full statement:

    The Constitution is our supreme law. It is a body of the core laws and principles that describe the general organisation and operation of the sovereign state of Barbados. It contains fundamental principles and delineates the norms that circumscribe the exercise of powers vested in a government. It is the fountain from which springs the authority of all government action. It is the means by which the key organs of the State, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, are established and are infused with the plenitude of authority and powers.
    More fundamentally, our Constitution represents an expression of the shared values, identity, and purpose of our society. It reflects the hopes and aspirations of every citizen of this country, one organised under democratic principles and whose people are inexorably committed to the rule of law. Central to this concept is the requirement that the government must, at all times, act in accordance with the law, especially our supreme law. Our legislative branch of government, in discharging the constitutional remit of making laws for the peace, order, and good government of this country, must be properly constituted at all times, and must pass laws strictly in accordance with the prescriptions of the Constitution, in order for any law passed by it to be infused with the colour of legitimacy.
    Parliament has been convened, and is purporting to conduct business, at a time when one of its key organs, the Senate, has not been constituted in accordance with the clear, unambiguous mandate of Section 36 of our Constitution. Only 18 of the required 21 Senators have been appointed. This means that we do not have a Senate, and, without a Senate, we do not have a Parliament. More importantly, any business that it purports to conduct will be devoid of validity. Despite the clear, urgent calls for the rectification of this unsatisfactory state of affairs, the Government has unlawfully proceeded to pass, in the House, a Bill for an Act of Parliament that alters the Constitution itself, at a time when three of the members of the august Senate body have not been appointed and will, consequently, have no opportunity to debate or vote on these crucial proposed constitutional amendments. This is against the background of no consultation with stakeholders, no attempt to obtain a broad consensus from members of our society about these substantial, fundamental changes to entrenched provisions of the Constitution that have represented our law for over 55 years.
    It is for these reasons that I feel compelled to seek the intervention of the courts to resolve this controversy – one that centres around issues of vital national importance and goes to the root of our democracy. I have today instructed my lawyers to file in the High Court an application that seeks declaratory reliefs aimed at compelling this Government to put its house in order before conducting the affairs of State. I do so in my capacity as a former Attorney General for this country and as a private citizen who is deeply committed to the notion that our government must be according to laws.
    I wish to make it clear that I am not bringing this action on behalf of any political party with which I may have previously been affiliated. My action is guided by my profound desire to ensure that our republic remains a democracy. I place my confidence in the courts, as the guardians of our Constitution, to resolve this pivotal and consequential constitutional crisis.
    I have enlisted the assistance of my good friend and colleague of almost 40 years, Garth Patterson, Q.C., who has kindly answered my call to represent me in this important cause, and he will act on my behalf with the able assistance of Michelle Russell, attorney-at-law.

    Read our ePaper. Fast


  22. What utter nonsense! THIS is where Adriel thinks he should make his mark????

    So what are the options? No government?

    I hear a lotta shite talk but I do not hear any solution.

    The people voted for a government. Why are these idiots trying to deny the outcome of the election?

    What are the options? What is the solution?

    No court can order another election based on an ‘undesirable” result, neither can it order a different result!

    So….what the rh can it do?


  23. @ Critical Analyzer February 9, 2022 5:09 PM
    (Quote):
    It matters not. We only vote for a representative for our own constituency, not a party representative or minister. The political party system has co-oped, corrupted and made a mockery of the whole system.
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Correct, CA!

    And that is why the recent piece of legislation to amend the Constitution to provide for the appointment of two senators to that un-elected organ of Parliament to represent the ‘Opposing’ interest of any unsuccessful political party at the general elections is not Kosher.

    What about where it really counts?
    That is, in the HoA to represent the ‘Opposing’ view(s) of those who voted against those members making up the current government.

    The Constitution ought to be amended first to reflect the relevance and function of political parties to the electoral process before any amendment can be made to provide for any political presence in the Senate other than those representing the elected government or any two on the recommendation of those Opposing members elected by the People in the Lower House.

    And that is the pivot on which the proposed amendment can be overturned.


  24. David BU

    I have take off my hat to you !

    You have sided with AG Dale Marshall on this Senategate when he declared…..’ the government is on good grounds with this constitutional amendment case ‘

    Didn’t the AG Marshall said the government was also on good groound – with 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police posts ?

    And it took the – fireside Attorney – Caswell Franklyn to shatter that case ?

    Does AG Marshall have his LEC ?

    I know the PM…..doan have hers !!

    Looka trouble…..


  25. @ angela cox February 9, 2022 7:23 PM
    @ Fractured BLP February 9, 2022 9:45 PM

    Wait … Wrathbait? Is this the same Wrathbait who is close friends with a certain orange jumpsuit currently vacationing in Texas on the federal cotton plantation?

    Indeed, the prime minister’s term of office does not end by calling a general election. If I believe your reasoning, our Supreme Leader would be allowed to rule with emergency decrees without parliament until the Senate is complete.

    Truly a great idea! I didn’t know that our Supreme Leader not only pulled Chris Sinckler over to the BLP, but you two as well. If Mia’s mentor and grandfather of the New Order, our national hero Errol Barrow only knew this: the DLP permanently enables our Supreme Leader to rule as a single person by refusing to serve in the Senate.


  26. yuh think Miller?!!?

    One would think that these lotta lawyers would recognize the fact that the introduction of the term ‘political party’ into the constitution can present even more confusion – depending on how the term is defined.
    While is sounds simple enough to talk about ‘the losing party with the most votes’ …who the hell determines who is a ‘party’?
    What then determines that a ‘party’ is valid? Where is it registered? Who speaks for it?
    The constitution currently does not contemplate any ‘parties’, so such changes should be carefully studied – least they lead to even more sinister anomalies .

  27. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Miller, why would any sensible group of Bajan legislators *…amended first [the Constitution] to reflect the relevance and function of political parties”..

    Surely u jest!

    @Donna there have been no claims of fraud with the elections so there is nary a chance that fresh elections could be adjudicated.

    Brathwaite wants to have confirmed that the Senate has been legally established with only the 18 persons appointed.

    If the courts rule in his favor and the govt loses on appeal then the President will have to basically ‘wheel and come fresh’ by exercising her discretionary duty and appointing the 2 senators and the BLP a person other than Mr 18 years old … and then AFTER all that they would pass the amendments and do as they originally intended with Kothdiwala, anyhow!

    So as you said “… lotta shite talk…”. When it’s all said and dun it’s…. stubborness or hubris or some sort of arrogant gamesmanship.

    As @Enuff said the President could stop all de shiteee toute suite… but maybe things too sweet to stop de par-tee!

    I gone.


  28. Bushie how yuh like muh now
    Yuh Ole boar


  29. Instead of the AG putting policies in.place to clean up crime
    He is being a signatory to crimes in high places orchestrated within intent to putting the Constitution in the firing line of MAM devious actions
    Shame
    I advice the judge not to.plsy hanky panky because the CCJ is also watching the outcome
    The CCJ takes the Constitution
    of the land with all seriousness unlike MAM who tries forcing square pegs in round holes and think the pegs magically does the required job


  30. @Donna

    The system we live gives all and sundry the opportunity to resort to the court for arbitration. We may not agree but it is what it is.


  31. @Fractured BLO

    Time will reveal all.

    What does not change is that the electorate voted 30-0.


  32. @Bush Tea

    A political party defines itself by that entity that was able to organize itself to attract votes in a election.


  33. @ David
    “A political party defines itself by that entity that was able to organize itself to attract votes in a election.”
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Boss! on occasion, Bushie is forced to conclude that you drink some ‘ac’ koolaid.
    Constitutionally, a “political party” CANNOT define itself. It has to be defined LEGALLY if it is mentioned in the highest law.

    So check this now….
    If there is a ‘losing’ party, then there must be a ‘winning’ party. If the ‘losing party’ can name officials, does this imply that the ‘winning party’ has similar rights? IF SO, then who picks the PM? ….and more importantly, who can bring a no confidence vote and declare that they no longer support the PM?
    Right now, it is the majority of the Parliament…. will it now be these nebulous ‘parties’?
    Can the ‘losing party’ arbitrarily DE-SELECT the senators it names? so that we see senators changing after party elections?

    This is a slippery slope…. typical behavior of people who are working by trial and error.

    If these LEGAL ‘EXPERTS’ are so clueless about such BASIC legal issues, can you imagine how completely AT SEA they must be about REALLY complex issues such as social development, economic success, infrastructural development and education?

    Boss, our asses are surely cooked…!!!

    @ ac
    Sis, you done know that Bushie is deeply in LOVE with you… almost as much as the Blog master..
    Those other BU humbugs don’t realize that when you refer to the ‘Ole Bore’, you are talking about our kind of ‘digging’..
    LOL..passing by later for a bit of digging, so loosen those weaves…


  34. @Bush Tea

    In our system do you deny that convention plays a part how we govern? In the case of Barbados you are aware how political parties are formed and recognized. How then is the subvention allocated to the losing party with seats in parliament? Come on Bush Tea, you can do better.


  35. What has giving away our money to their political chums and buddies got to do with the LEGAL status of our constitution?
    The ‘thing’ that our politicians do BEST is give away our money…. to each other, to Malmoney, to Bizzy, to a host of ‘consultants’ and to hoards of lazy, mendicant Bajan BB’s who are for sale – in exchange for their vote to maintain the noose around our necks…

    The problem with changing the constitution is that there exists a CCJ; with Judges who seem able to think with some degree of logic…. and who have been embarrassing our ‘leaders’ on practically every occasion that they have been exposed to the sanity of enlightened scrutiny…

    Only prayer can save us now…. but we have LONG passed the point we we can even RECOGNIZE that fact.
    Our ass is grass!!!


  36. @Bush Tea

    What about the unwillingness of members of the public to step forward and agitate for better? To discharge their civic responsibility? We encourage bottom feeders to represent us in parliament when citizens of integrity refuse to participate in the system of governance we practice. A chicken and egg scenario indeed!


  37. No David – it is NOT chicken and egg…
    What is shows is why YOU are and outlier, and an INSPIRATION to Bajans – even if you modestly fail to recognize it.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Reflect, if you can, on the history of one Caswell Franklyn. CLEARLY a man of the mold that we NEED to have in ANY Senate of Barbados.
    Do you realize that BU CREATED Caswell?
    Check back the archives and you will see that… Were it not for BU’s support for his moral and ethical attitudes (ofter in the face of wicked attempts to discredit him with slander etc) he would have given up in frustration like many others.

    If ANY of the other SHIITE news outlets in Barbados were to set standards of TRUTH and HONESTY and of STANDING UP for JUSTICE, then many OTHER Caswell would arise and shine.
    Instead, these LACKIE ‘news outlets’ merely parrot the PR of the VERY political miscreants that have polluted the country’s leadership and the Malmonies that rob us blind.
    Bushie said YEARS ago that when Harold Hoyte et at sold off the Nation to outsiders, IT WAS THE DEATH KNELL for the country.
    The country’s ACTUAL EDUCATION SYSTEM is the public press – who create, highlight and promote the national priorities…. and LEADERS.

    Apart from BU, tell Bushie where we have any kind of hope….
    …but you are just as poor as Caswell – so you can’t compete with the wicked…
    Bushie suggested YEARS ago that you start a “Come-Fund-BU” scheme so that you can REALLY make a difference against the Trikidadian mafia, ….but you like you ‘fraid

    Our goose is cooked!


  38. @Bush Tea

    Someone has to act in the Pollyanna role.

    Hope springs eternal.

    Without hope the process of atrophy is uneventful.


  39. DPD,

    I thought he was challenging on other grounds.

    The “problem” will be easily solved by the President. EVENTUALLY. Maybe she WANTS the Court to rule. Then she could not be called “political”.


  40. @Donna

    If the president is directed by the constitution to act in certain circumstances why would she be labeled political?


  41. @ David
    If the president is directed by the constitution to act in certain circumstances why would she be labeled political?
    ~~~~~~
    When loyal German soldiers were directed to operate the gas chambers, why were they labeled as war criminals?


  42. @Bush Tea

    With respect your analogy is not an apple and apple one.


  43. David,

    Yuh really askin’ me dat question??????

    She SHOULD NOT BE, BUT SHE WILL BE!

    See above for Crazy Exhibit 1.


  44. For chrissake! Enough crazy for today!

    Lawd, uh cyan tek it nuh mo’!

    Nearly six years of Trump Madness and now this nonsense!

    What the hell is wrong with people??????

    Pure piffle!


  45. @Donna

    This is what she is probably afraid of, she is a former High Court Justice and should be versed in interpreting the Constitution at above lay level.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading