Not Bout Here

It is well said, there is nothing wrong with change if it is in the right direction. – Sir Winston Churchill

 

 

 

THE REVELATION by former Prime Minister Owen Arthur last weekend that the David Thompson administration might be considering major changes to the conduct and character of elections in Barbados raised red flags all across a country that is admired for its electoral process throughout the Commonwealth and beyond.

Our electoral system may not be like Caesar’s wife, above reproach, as few systems are, but it is a source of pride to Barbadians whose ancestors fought and died for the right to cast their ballots – freely and fairly . . . .

We wish to remind the Prime Minister of this little clause in the Constitution as it relates to the Electoral and Boundaries Commission:

“In the exercise of its functions . . . the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”

Just as Sir Grantley Adams and the Barbados Labour Party fought for Universal Adult Suffrage in 1951, so too will we fight to the last man standing today to make certain that political operatives are not allowed to ambush a commission that is protected by the Constitution of Barbados. We will do everything in our power to ensure that 270 000 pairs of eyes are wide open and focused on any attempt to supersede the role of the commission in order to introduce overseas voting here.

We have seen the concerted effort by David Thompson to court the Barbadian overseas community while in Opposition and there is nothing wrong with that. We heard when he said that one of his many overseas trips as Prime Minister was to visit Barbadians living in New York, no doubt to reward their support, and nothing wrong with that either. But think again, Mr Thompson, if you believe that you can foist overseas voting on Barbadians who live and pay taxes here. Not ’bout here!

Listen to one of the other areas suggested for investigation – “the need for and possible direction of integrity legislation”. Wait! What’s going on here? After so much talk from the Dems about their commitment to integrity legislation, they now need research to decide if it is necessary? Have they forgotten their manifesto promise to “immediately introduce integrity legislation”? No wonder 61 per cent of respondents in the NATION poll considered their performance poor.

And that is not all. They also want to review the methodology used to calculate the level of unemployment in Barbados. Reasonable, you might say, but guess who is going to get another $10 000 a month for this review?

Our point is a very simple one. We are not against a review of any system in Government. Times change, technology changes and we cannot remain stuck in the past for the sake of defending tradition. What we will not do is sanction intervention by political operatives in Government departments run by trained professionals and protected by statute simply for the sake of providing work for one of the boys. If research is required to assist the public service, let the University of the West Indies or some other independent entity provide it.

A butcher, a baker…….

THE GOVERNMENT finally brought down its first bill to the house on Tuesday. Four months in gestation, it was obviously a casualty of induced labour. The Minister of Health has stamped (or is it stomped) his authority on the composition of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) board through the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Amendment Act.

Our hospital is now to be managed by an accountant, an engineer, a finance manager, a human resources manager, an industrial relations practitioner, and a trained IT person, a lawyer, a doctor, a nurse, a paramedic and someone trained in management operations (whatever that means). The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health and the Chief Medical Officer are to be ex-officio members of the new board.

The minister will now appoint all 13 members of the board and none of them can be members of staff of the QEH. The very people who are responsible for the successful operation of the hospital are no longer good enough to have a say on the board. They will no longer be allowed to make any input on policy at board level. They will no longer be allowed to participate in the decision-making process. Their experience and institutional memories will no longer be used to guide the board. Not for them any contribution to the Government’s “Rescue Plan”.

This backward policy decision by the goodly doctor is both reprehensible and insulting to the professionals at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. But it is all the more so, given the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) promise in its manifesto to allow “for real participatory democracy in Barbados where public policy is not imposed from the top . . .”. If the minister did not read that section, we want him to read this one from a few paragraphs earlier: ” . . . Too many Barbadians perceive voting as a waste of time since many parliamentarians have made promises during the election campaigns, which they have not delivered.” In fact, it should be required reading for the entire DLP Cabinet.

What is even more amazing is that although QEH is a teaching hospital and part of the Cave Hill Campus Faculty of Medicine, the representatives of the university have been unceremoniously tossed off the board. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

Even if the minister did not want to keep the representatives from the Barbados Association of Medical Practitioners, or the Barbados Registered Nurses’ Association, or the Chief of Medical Staff, or the Director of Nursing, we can find no logic in his dispensing with the dean of the School of Clinical Medicine and Research.

Even if he saw no value in having representation from the Barbados Association of Retired Persons, or the Christian Council, the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados, the Private Sector Agency or the nominee of the principal of the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies, how does he justify a policy that will now cause the focus to be on personalities instead of the wider groups, which they previously represented?

Is his idea of participatory democracy a shopping list of various skill sets? In this regard, we cannot help but recall a verse from our childhood:

Rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub, And how do you think they got there?

A butcher, a baker a candlestick maker – They all jumped out of a rotten potato!

‘Twas enough to make a fish stare.

The minister’s odd thought process aside, we wish the men and women that he appoints to the board God’s blessing in their endeavours.