At the core of a current debate is the vexed issue of the government’s recently announced BDS$600 million (US$300M) “stimulus package” to, hopefully, lift the national economy out of depression and create new jobs.
Ironically, when the parliamentary opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) thought it necessary to propose a US$45 million “stimulus package” at the height of the campaign for last February 21 general election, it was derided by the administration of Prime Minister Freuendel Stuart with backing from Governor of the Barbados Central Bank Governor, Dr Delisle Worrell.
Within weeks of returning to power for a second term, with a mere two-seat majority in the 30-member House of Assembly (where it previously had a whopping two-thirds control), Prime Minister Stuart’s Finance Minister, Chris Sinckler, was announcing as part of his package of 2013/2014 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, a US$300M “stimulus” development programme.
While the BLP was understandably engaging in teasing cynical responses, high-ranking business executives, academics and leading media commentators were questioning the evident contradictions on the part of the government, and urging that Central Bank’s Governor Worrell, for one, break his silence on the government’s “stimulus programme” when he had shown such disapproval of the mere US$45M proposed by the opposition.
Of debt and ‘stimulus’
At the time of writing, the Central Bank Governor had seemingly managed to skirt this specific issue during a question-and-answer period at a lunchtime-lecture organised by the Barbados Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI).
He focused, instead, on pointing out that unlike some other economies, in and out of the Caribbean, Barbados “does not have a debt problem,” and that what really mattered was its “ability to service its foreign debt costs…”
Well, Dr Worrell, a respected fiscal expert of the region, would know that as worry over the state of the national economy continues to be reflected in the media, from various quarters, he would have to make further interventions to ease the fears and passions of Barbadians over the gloomy economic prospects.
Last month’s general elections seem to have made no difference to a mood-shift in favour of optimism, and the results may simply have confirmed a virtual entrenched two-term electoral syndrome, with Barbadians sticking with the politics of giving an incumbent a “second chance” in government.
Hence, the February 21 general elections came and went, with the political status quo remaining as “Dems again”, and the Bees’ promise of “a better tomorrow” deferred for another season — whether in five years or much earlier.
The new post-election arithmetic of a parliamentary majority for the incumbent DLP of merely two in the 30-member House of Assembly has left one columnist, Tennyson Joseph, piquantly noting in last Tuesday’s edition of the Daily Nation that when called to pick a government between the two parties, the electorate was seemingly “mobilized into indecision.”
The Nation’s editorial in that same edition, titled ‘Time for creative political moves in Barbados interest’, made a spirited call for structured consultations that are not restricted to government and traditional stakeholders, but rather a new, creative dialogue process between representatives of the governing and opposition parties.
Critical challenges
My own view of this may well be thinking “out of the box”. And why not? The dynamics of the time suggests initiatives hitherto unthinkable, but which could be politically path-finding as well for other CARICOM partners — some currently facing even more daunting challenges than Barbados, where data revealed by a just-released Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), and conducted by the UWI Cave Hill campus, is most unflattering.
For a start, this first-ever Country Assessment of Living Conditions (CALC) survey for Barbados, has revealed that 15 per cent of the country’s households and 19.3 per cent of individuals were existing “below the poverty line.”
Further, approximately a quarter of the adult population of Barbados surveyed are listed among the 21 per cent who have no interest in being employed — for a range of excuses, among them claimed low wages, and work deemed as “unsuitable”.
Against this background, and with increasing disclosures of climbing crime and violence—the latter development posing new threats to this nation’s vital tourism sector—there has come the disclosure of a disturbing threat to the local poultry industry—one that clearly requires an urgent and sensible response by those concerned.
Speaking last weekend about this “threat”, Chief Executive Officer of the Barbados Poultry Industry, James Paul, disclosed that it involves a new move by major “fast food” outlets to “import most, if not all, of their meat…”. The baking and related industries, he said, were also expected to be hurt as a consequence too of” new entrants” in the
fast-food business.
Crime and tourists
However, the government may well be pushed into moving swiftly on the anti-crime front without having to establish a special court to deal with increasing criminal attacks on foreign tourists.
The surprising idea originated last week with President of the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA), Patricia Affonso-Dass, while updating members on the negative impact on the tourism sector of rising incidence of crimes against tourists.
Police Commissioner Darwin Dottin’s immediate response was that any idea of a special court to deal with crimes against foreign tourists
Would have to be “the call of the policy makers….we deploy and continue to deploy a significant amount of our resources for protection of visitors and citizens across Barbados…..”
But as far as President of the Barbados Bar Association, Andrew Pilgrim, is concerned, such a move would find NO support from the local bar.
The normally militant lawyer said that such a move could create some serious conflicts for the society with a seeming preference to upgrade handling of crimes affecting foreign tourists when prevailing problems in the courts system.
He feels that in addition to ending the current frustrating sloth system in dealing with cases that are unfair for victims of crime as well as the often young men awaiting trial for the reported criminal acts, there also need to be a critical evaluation of the “home environment” where ‘father figures” are failing to assume responsible roles.
