The Prime Minister plans to change Barbados’ Constitution to discourage parliamentarians from betraying her party. All organizations have their judases. Jesus had one Judas in His 12-member party. Using that standard, a 30-member political party may have to manage at least three judases. Should the Constitution of Barbados be changed to address an internal party matter? The Prime Minister may consider Solutions Barbados’ approach.

Solutions Barbados was formed on 1st July 2015. After analysing Barbados’ economy, we published our policy solutions and implementation plans to Barbados’ economic and social problems on our web-site for the government to consider – it chose not to.

Our analysis of Barbados’ economy revealed the root cause of Barbados’ economic problems being the significant overpayment for Government-managed services. That over-payment was independently verified to be more than the combined VAT and land taxes the Government collected. The IMF reviewed our economic plan before the 2018 election and found it workable, but doubted whether we could address the entrenched corruption. We said that we could because we were self-funded – with no donors to answer to.

CORRUPTION.

A common overpayment method is for a contractor to approach a vulnerable government with a no-bid offer to build a $100 Million project for $300 M. The government pays the contractor $300M. The contractor gives the political party a $200 M donation. Taxes are then increased on the public to pay for the $200M overpayment-donation. This method only works because the public has no idea whether a project costs $100M or $300M – and national organizations that know keep quiet.

We are now accustomed to both political parties accusing the other of gross corruption. They waved credible evidence and threatened prosecution so often at their election meetings that we are no longer outraged. We simply accept it as part of Barbadian culture and dutifully pay the increased taxes – knowing that the often-waved evidence will never be given to the police. This learned helplessness partly explains voter apathy.

WHISTLE-BLOWERS TO THE RESCUE.

Solutions Barbados’ policy to address corruption was to have a 3-month initial amnesty where both givers and receivers of bribes could avoid prosecution by: (i) paying a fine equal to the value of the bribe and (ii) declaring whom they bribed or received the bribe. After the amnesty, whistle-blowers would be rewarded with the full value of the bribe and both payer and receiver would be liable for a fine of ten times the value of the bribe.

When prosecuted, contractors and consultants from developing countries normally justify bribes as a normal cost of doing business in developing countries. Several development banks, including the CDB and IDB, maintain long lists of consultants and contractors who are barred from participating in their projects due to corrupt practices.

EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING CORRUPTION.

Solutions Barbados invited candidates to implement specific policy Solutions if elected. The foreseen risk was if those candidates were bribed to not vote for them. The most effective deterrent was found to be a financial penalty on the candidate and any organisation bribing the candidate.

Candidates were invited to, willingly and without reservations, enter into a binding Contractual Agreement with any number of charities in Barbados. Each candidate agreed to pay to each charity the Barbados dollar equivalent of US$250,000 every time they did not vote for a specific Solution. The Candidate could select which Solutions they were comfortable including in the Agreement – but our anti-corruption policy was mandatory.

Voting for improved Solutions was specified not to be an act of betrayal. The US dollar equivalent was selected to address any Barbados dollar devaluation. The US$250,000 amount was chosen because that was the reported rate for bribing leaders in the US.

PROTECTION AND A HINDERANCE.

The Contract was designed to protect candidates from bribers. The more Charities a candidate contracted with, the stronger the protection. A Solutions Barbados candidate who signed a contract with four charities would need to demand a bribe of four times US$250,000 or US$1 M to vote against each Solution just to break even. Bribers would certainly by-pass Solutions Barbados candidates because their price was designed to be unaffordable.

When the contract was introduced, all Solutions Barbados candidates saw the value of the protection and voted unanimously for it. When newer candidates came on board and we had 28 candidates, some wanted to re-vote on the contract – which was agreed. Interestingly, only three candidates voted against it.

_{Grenville Phillips II is a Doctor of Engineering, Chartered Structural Engineer and President of Solutions Barbados. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com}