The Mia Mottley administration came into office in 2018 on a promise of accountability and transparency. These are sweet-sounding terms that will sate the party faithful and appeal to the gullible. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Are Barbadians being availed of all the information that is likely to impact their lives and their children’s? Are our parliamentarians honouring the faith and trust reposed in them by the electorate? Indications are that the jury might be out on this particular situation.
The Barbados Labour Party’s (BLP) historic 30-0 victory in the 2018 general election meant that an increased burden was placed on Government to ensure the transparency and accountability of which it so eloquently spoke on the political platforms.
The contrived Opposition created by erstwhile BLP stalwart Bishop Joseph Atherley and the hurriedly minted People’s Development for Democracy and Development (PdP) was good for the democratic process, or at least made 29-1 appear more palatable than 30-0. And the country must thank Bishop Atherley and especially his Senate appointees Caswell Franklyn and Crystal Drakes for bringing some serious and pertinent information to public attention that, under the circumstances of a 30-0 majority, might have slipped through into law.
But there are problems. We note the repeated complaints of the Opposition Leader and Senator Franklyn, as well as Independent senators about important Bills not being made available to them in a timely manner. This has been a recurring theme since 2018, where not only Atherley but non-Government Senators bemoan the fact that sometimes they are furnished with copies of Bills on the same day of debates, or the day before, with inadequate time to peruse them. This is not good enough. And if complaints are still being made in 2021, one cannot fault the average citizen for thinking that this is deliberate or that Government may be trying to sneak legislation through Parliament. We do not believe this present administration engages in any form of subterfuge but one cannot prevent citizens from forming this opinion if members not dressed in red continue to complain about this situation.
Not surprisingly, Barbadians have been distracted by whether Rihanna should be a National Hero or not, whether ‘Creator’ should replace ‘God’ in our new republic’s official lingo, and all manner of debate that some might contend is nothing more than sound and fury. But there are some issues that have drawn very little public debate and that have the potential to affect the lives of Barbadians in perpetuity.
There are some issues surrounding Government’s proposed Debt Settlement Arrears Bill that need further explanation, whether at the national level or at the constituency level.
Government’s excessive borrowing is an obvious indicator that it is cash-strapped. But then so too are thousands of Barbadians without the same financial escape valves as the state. Many Barbadians with Government bonds in their possession and who were hoping to benefit from them with cash had those expectations dashed in 2018.
Government seems to be embarking on a strategy that would allow for the settlement of debt to citizens with the issuance of bonds. Will Barbadians have a say as to whether they will accept Government paper or will they have the option to demand cash? There are many Barbadians who have had their land legally acquired by the state without compensation for decades. Are these individuals now under an obligation to accept bonds in circumstances where they might have immediate financial encumbrances or might have had accumulated expenses over the years as a result of loss of their land?
And what about other situations? What will apply when citizens bring successful lawsuits against the Government? Could we possibly have a situation where a citizen is hurt or incapacitated as a result of state negligence and that individual is issued with bonds rather than cash? What about persons who after 33 1/3 years or more in the service of the state, are issued with bonds rather than gratuity and pension? Could this proposed legislation have the effect of honouring awards for successful lawsuits for arbitrary dismissal with bonds?
Government and its various agents need to fully educate the general public on what this Bill will mean for their immediate bottom line when they really need it more so than deferred paper that can be deferred even further by a mere Cabinet decision. We have seen similar occurrences before.
The legislation also proposes a Natural Disaster Clause that legitimizes the deferral of payment of debt owed to citizens by Government. How will this work in circumstances where the payments that are deferred are to be paid to Barbadians who might be among those most severely affected in catastrophic situations? There has been little public debate on this Bill. Are average citizens aware of it? Have the 30 parliamentarians, consultants brought up the subject at branch meetings or under the streetlights? Have the three main trade unions been involved in any discussions with Government leading up to the drafting of the legislation? It appears that the Bill can have far-reaching consequences for the average Barbadian already complaining of the high cost of living, diminishing employment opportunities, declining social services, low wages, and a host of other infelicities that exist.
There is at least one trade unionist sitting in the Lower Chamber and another in the Upper House. What is their take on this legislation? Did the Opposition and Independent Senators receive copies of the Bill in a timely fashion in order to peruse it with the proverbial fine-tooth comb?
We reiterate that we do not believe the Mottley administration is a Government of stealth. But it must add bone to its fleshy rhetoric about transparency and accountability with respect to this very important matter.
