With the trend likely to continue into the month of December 2021, it is the worst of times in recent memory in Barbados. The island is the midst the valley of the shadow of death. Today Covid-19 has claimed 191 victims. The number of infected persons is on the increase and there are over 6,000 thousand of persons in home isolation. Death, fear, insecurity, discrimination, and high inflation are the order of the day in Barbados.

The government and the country are on 2 different wave lengths. While the people suffer, the government is going along with its plans to implement a Republic on November 30^th. The only way to explain it, is that it is as if the people are on the ground in Barbados while the administration is millions of miles away in another galaxy with the notion that all is well in the land and not faced with the reality of a suffering Barbados.

The road to the republic was paved with greed, money, lack of good governance, government not adhering to its own financial rules and a vaccination scam until segregation appeared in the form of “safe zones” adding to the fray.

Time and time again we have heard or have been convinced that there are 2 Barbados.’ We have seen it on display in the adjudication of justice, the distinction between the wealthy and the poor, the award of government contracts, access to land and housing, jobs and placements and the list can go on, but this discrimination has never been put into law before now in a post emancipation and post-independence Barbados.

What the existence of this safe zone order means is that it is now clear that the existence of the 2 Barbados’ has become law through the Prime Minister’s Emergency Order. Basically, it is the “we against them” law that is now in effect, the basis of a segregated society. Although government has backed down on the roll out of this order, the order has not been cancelled. However, it has given teeth to some in the private sector to come up with their own guidelines.

Dr Vidya Armogan rolled out his crafted package with website and all, seeking a public private partnership so therefore the Prime Minister has knowledge of his plans. It is a plan that echoes the creation of Nazi Germany only the with dominant control by the private sector. The plan determines which company a resident of Barbados can and cannot visit. Ultimately this plan of creating safe zones will never stop the spread of the virus and perhaps the intent is not to do so. The plan will just give some who are gullible enough to believe it, a false sense of security. The one question I have for this dentist is, what will happen if it is confirmed that the vaccinated in the safe zones are the majority spreaders of Covid-19?

So, what is the trajectory here? Is it that persons who voted for this administration will be denied access to health care, jobs, education, to purchase food in the supermarket and ultimately denial to cast their vote when the next General Election is called? Are the safe zones the foundation from which the unthinkable can occur?

For those of you who may think that this idea of segregation is a fiction from the writer’s imagination, there were 2 conflicting events that occurred in Barbados yesterday. One was the public outcry to the video on Barbados Today of the dentist detailing his plans to divide and segregate society and add to the curtailed freedoms of the people of Barbados. The other was the public witnessing of the scene at Oistins last night. It was rammed with tourists at the start of the tourist season, and they were roaming without masks!

In One Barbados, we have person’s being threatened by a legal order that restricts them from entering “safe Zone” and in the Other Barbados, Tourist can enter the island without a period of quarantine and freely roam the island without masks. Perhaps someone has shared with them the BMTI’s new slogan that will not see the light of day, “Barbados: Feel Free.”

The creation may be subtle, but it is the story of segregation, and it has happened before in modern times in Germany, South Africa and the Deep South in America.

If this is just the road to the Republic, I shudder at what the Republic may bring.

This island needs a General Election and sooner rather than later and if the private sector wishes to make laws, they should feel free to meet the electorate at the polls.

Submitted by Caleb Pilgrim

Hon Blogmaster, I read somewhere that “all is vanity and vexation of spirit”. Maybe!  But, can this maxim equally apply to the issue of the coming Republicke of Barbadoes?

Candor demands that I confess at the outset that such a prospect does not particularly exercise me one way or another. However, it may well be that, as many bloggers have noted, absent collective discussion via a properly executed national referendum – notwithstanding past public and parliamentary discussion – to foist some feel good, happy talk “republic” on the Barbadian public, may well represent a little bread and circus, if not a mindless, (some might even say despotic) descent into an empty constitutionalism largely irrelevant to Barbados’s national growth and development at this particular historical juncture.

Come November 30, 2021, we may well have succeeded in putting the cart before the horse. But, rather than a gold standard of political re-structuring, are we now being asked to buy a pig in a poke; to walk by faith, and not by reason, on a bridge to nowhere?

Or, in the final analysis, a decision having been made, are we now to scramble to meet a preordained deadline? What makes this exercise more than sheer symbolism, a magical, manipulative, calculated, political exercise, more swagger than substance?

Pray tell us, Blogmaster, why now, if both parties have toyed with this subject for a relatively long time? And why is this not another band-aid solution in search of a problem; “all vanity and vexation of spirit”?

As a rationale, some will have suggested that “advanced”, industrialized countries, e.g the U.S, France, Germany et al, are republics, inferring that their prosperity somehow derives from or correlates with their republican status. I find an alluring, Eden like simplicity to the argument.

I would wager to the contrary that a cursory survey might show that out of the poorest 20 countries in the world, 20 are republics. Out of the 20 most crime ridden countries in the world 20 are republics. Out of the 20 most debt ridden countries, an assortment of republics, monarchical systems, etc, etc.., prevail.

Republican status, therefore, as an instrument of political organization, guarantees little or nothing, per se. it can represent the good, the bad, the ugly and the indifferent in any people. It does not guarantee political, economic, cultural, social progress and development. The label, “republic”, without other assets, properly utilized, can be utterly meaningless.

As of 2017, per Wikipedia, there were 159 countries out of 206 which used the term “republic” in their names. This means that approximately 78% of states operating in the international community represent themselves as “republics” of some sort.

True to form … Comes now, Barbados, 55 years after, in November 2021, late to the party, republic # 160, “a friend of all”, “a satellite of none”, history made by “effluxion of time”.

It is also worth noting that in recent times, some critics concerned at problems confronting Barbados, have labeled Barbados a “failed state”. If true, how will a “failed state” come November 30, 2021, transform itself, or morph into a successful, thriving “republic”? Shouldn’t a failed state, whatever its causes, logically lead to a failed Republic? How does a toad or a toadie suddenly become a prince or princess? And, while we are at it, who really needs another toothless, bootlegged republic? Aren’t there already a dime a dozen?

To be poor often means to be defined as who, or what we are not. In this vein, which  right thinking person would wish to be a President Moise of Haiti, recently assassinated; or his wife shot in the wee hours; or a President Henry currently under investigation? Or, a much maligned and misunderstood President, Idi Amin? Or, a President Mobutu? Or, a President Macias Nguema? Or, a President Bokassa? Or, a President of Afghanistan or of Albania (notwithstanding Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”), or of El Salvador, Guatemala, et al? Who would wish to be another pompous fraud with abundant airs, royally presiding over some squalid, political farce in a failed republic historically beset and bedeviled by countless political and socio-economic problems? And, this is in no way intended to disparage those leaders who seek to do the best they know how.

On the other hand, which reasonable person would wish to be bound to an arcane monarchical system, with empty posers, e.g here, a wayward Prince historically useless, an alleged paedophile or child molester, and a royal ne’er do well; over there, a philandering Princess heavily subsidized by the hapless British taxpayer or taxpayers in the U.K. and Colonies?

In terms of national priorities, then, are there not enough immediate problems in Barbados without hog tying the current system, imperfect as it is, to empty drivel about a Republic? Covid-19 and its increasing havoc? The excessively high cost of living, food in particular? The national Debt? Perennially high unemployment, and underemployment? A widely criticized legal system? Endemic corruption? The 1m trees promised, etc, etc?

An example from comparative politics may also be instructive. The French Republic has had several iterations: The First French Republic, 1792 – 1799; The Second French Republic, 1848 – 1852; The Third French Republic, 1870 – 1940; The Fourth French Republic, 1946 – 1958; The Fifth French Republic, 1958 to the present. How many iterations will a Republic of Barbados require over time to right maladies confronting Barbadian society, past, present and future; from slavery, through colonialism to post-“independence”?

Still from the comparative politics standpoint, another issue, that of an electoral college continues to generate much controversy, e.g in the US ….

Since 2000, two out of five U.S presidential elections have been won by the candidate who lost the popular vote. They have won because of the Electoral College. This kind of consistent rejection of the public’s will breeds frustration and antipathy. Shouldn’t a properly functioning democracy ensure that every vote counts – that every citizen has a voice in their government?
However, altering or eliminating the Electoral College in the U.S requires a
Constitutional Amendment. This is therefore an enormous undertaking, requiring the support of at least two-thirds of the members in the U.S Senate and in the House of Representatives, and the ratification of at least thirty-eight states. At this time, Congress has virtually abandoned any proposal to reform the Electoral College.

In recent years, at the state level, several legislatures have voted to enter into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (an interstate agreement to award all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote). The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would not alter or eliminate the Electoral College. However, it would ensure the winner of the national popular vote becomes the U.S President when enough states to represent at least half of the Electoral College votes enter into the agreement.
In a different vein, to the friend who cautioned me that I was one of those Bajans who would have opposed Barbados’ “Independence” in 1966; I say “not really”; even though I recall that the late Sir Grantley and others opposed independence for Barbados in 1966.

The facts and circumstances were different in Nov 1966. By then, a substantial number of former colonies had gained their titular “independence”, so much so that 1960 had been known as “Africa’s Year” at the U.N, Ghana having been first to attain independence in 1957. Even the much vaunted Singapore (model) had assumed status as a republic in 1965. (If “Big Ghana” had become an independent republic in 1957, doesn’t “Little Ghana” seeking republic status in 2021 not now seem too little too late)? Why therefore preoccupy ourselves with stale political ideas about a republic now? It all now seems a bit passé as a flavor of the month. Remind me when was it that Plato originally wrote his “Republic”; a text known to every first year political science student; circa 375 B.C?

Certainly, it is undisputed that Barbados, as a sovereign, independent state, has the legal right to exercise its sovereignty, and renounce any subservience to the British monarchy.

But, where, what and why is the compelling urgency of now? In sum, what makes it so necessary to declare Barbados a republic at this specific juncture? And, specifically, who benefits? Qui bono? Perhaps, a politically astute Prime Minister who would eradicate and supersede the popular memory of EWB’s legacy as “Father of Independence”. Perhaps, a few merchants benefiting from a spike in temporary sales of republican memorabilia. How also will becoming a republic raise Barbados’s status at the international level?

In the final analysis, this move towards a republic appears a fading replica of a once faddish meteor of little or no enduring value. Like the crumb from Dives’s table, or some cheap mascara, it will do little or nothing, to advance the fortunes of the average Barbadian, even if it might yield another bootleg republic doomed to a pretentious mediocrity in the oblivion of history.

The U.S Embassy (per Wikileaks) once spoke of “Mottleynomics”. Perhaps, better “the economy stupid” as a priority. Or, a serious attempt to rollback “crime and violence”. Who can forget the many political ads lambasting the late P.M. Thompson re his seeming obsession with “crime and violence”?

Honorable Blogmaster, would you do an aging comrade a favor and kindly have the PIP (the People in Power) delineate in precise detail the specific benefits which will inure to Barbados on becoming a republic come November 30, 2021? Nothing fantastical; no fluff; no flummery; no fluckrry; no folderol.

For, as we attempt to rewrite our constitutional history, re-casting Barbados as a republic, as a priority, will neither reconstruct Barbados’s sorry past as a captive, slave, plantation society, nor usher in any type of Utopian future. Better perhaps to focus on promptly resolving persistent, fundamental issues; call a snap election depending on one’s record of substantive achievements and one’s internal polling; and moving the electoral process swiftly forward; rather than drift or limp along like some previous administrations.

Let us not trample the truth. There are few risks, but even fewer objective benefits in declaring Barbados a republic.

Dear Prime Minister:

I first met you over two decades ago in my capacity as an Engineer.  You were the Minister of Education.  From that first meeting until the present, your determination to get things done for the benefit of Barbadians has been evident.

Only God has all knowledge.  Therefore, all of us must all make decisions based on partial knowledge.  Rather than use ‘partial knowledge’ as an excuse to have us flounder in a sea of uncertainty, you have been decisive.  If your decisions did not have the intended results, you reversed your decision to keep us moving forward.

Since no human is perfect, your Ministers inevitably made blunders.  When they did so, you did not publicly chastise them.  Instead, you quickly intervened to show them how to make better decisions.  Your demonstrated willingness to change your mind is not a weakness.  Rather, it is perhaps your greatest leadership strength, that makes it easy for people to trust and follow you.

CANNOT BE UNDONE.

I feel compelled to write you this open letter, since for the first time as Prime Minister, you plan to make a decision for all of us, that you cannot later undo.

Madam Prime Minister, the time for investigating the potential benefits and liabilities to Barbadians, if Barbados becomes a Republic, is now – not when it is too late to do anything about it.  Any harmful consequences will be permanent on all future generations of Barbadians.  Therefore, being decisive on this one issue, is not in the best interest of Barbadians.

THE BLP’S PROMISE.

This permanent change to how Barbadians are governed, requires the consent of both Parliament and the public.  Your advisors are claiming that the public gave their consent by electing the BLP in the 2018 General Election.  They claim that you actively campaigned on this issue, and that it was prominent in the BLP’s 2018 Manifesto.

To my knowledge, none of the nine political parties who contested the 2018 General Election, campaigned on the Republic issue.  The facts are that there is no mention of any plan to make Barbados a Republic, in either: the BLP’s 2018 Manifesto, the BLP’s 2016 Covenant of Hope, or the BLP’s 2013 Manifesto.

The most recent BLP plan for making Barbados a Republic, is a promise in the BLP’s 2008 Manifesto.  Page 77 reads: “Update the Constitution Review Commission recommendations on replacing the Crown with a Barbadian President and proceed to consult the public fully by way of a referendum”.  This never happened.  Therefore, the public were not consulted on this issue, and the public did not give their consent.

THE CONSTITUTION REVIEW COMMISSION.

Your advisors insist that we must follow the recommendations in the 1998 Report of the Constitution Review Commission.  However, they never mention the Commission’s warning that Barbados was vulnerable to harm, from what it called “Prime Ministerial dictatorship”.

The Barbados Constitution was designed to prevent the economic ruin of Barbados, by a politicised public service.  After we became Independent, Parliament began making changes to our Constitution (especially the 1974 amendments), to give the Prime Minister the power to politicise our public services.

In the 1976 General Election, the BLP promised to reverse the 1974 Constitutional amendments if they were elected to form the government.  After the BLP was elected, in classic ‘Lord of the Rings’ fashion, Prime Minister Adams found the new powers too addictive to give up.

ACT IN GOOD FAITH.

Madam Prime Minister, I do not believe that you are, or will become a dictator.  However, I believe that if we become a Republic, without an effective restraint that our Constitution currently provides, that a dictator will certainly arise to do us harm.

The Commission’s recommendation of a Republic, pales in comparison with the recommendation to address the risk of Prime Ministerial dictatorship.  The Commission’s recommendation to remove the powers that a Prime Minister was never intended to have, should be done.  After approximately 50 years of broken promises on this issue, doing this first would be an act of good faith on your part.

WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS.

We have seen previous Prime Ministers almost choke themselves as they pulled at the Constitutional restraints.  All of our previous Prime Ministers proved themselves too weak to reverse those dangerous Constitutional amendments.

Madam Prime Minister, for us to become a Republic, while still addicted to that power, is not in our best interests.  I believe that at least one year is required, to demonstrate to the public that the extreme withdrawal symptoms of having addictive power taken away, has been overcome.

The risk to all of us if we become a Republic prematurely, is that once the withdrawal symptoms kick in, you can simply use your 30-0 majority to reclaim the powers you gave up just to make Barbados a Republic.  We will then have to live the nightmare that our present Constitution tried to protect us from, and the 1979 and 2008 Commissions warned us about.

DO NOT JUST TAKE IT.

Madam Prime Minister, while I believe that you are better than your predecessors, no one knows if you are stronger than them.  Since they chose to remain addicted, they avoided the withdrawal symptoms of letting go dangerous power.  You have only had that power for three years.  If you give up that power, then you will enter unchartered territory.  The prudent thing to do is to give yourself, and us, time to see the results.

Your advisors want you to behave like a dictator now, and forcibly take our consent.  I am asking you to earn it, as promised in your party’s 2008 Manifesto.  This includes allowing an honest discussion on this issue, and then letting the people decide how they want to be governed, by holding the BLP promised referendum.

Yours respectfully.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com