A new paradigm for civil society response is a desperate need for our ailing society – and not only in the sphere of economic matters.
I do not think it is a misconstruction to say that in the 2008 elections, a significant number of Barbadians voted the Barbados Labour Party out because of perceived arrogance, dismissiveness, insensitivity and other evidences that those in “power” were taking the people’s stake in their democracy for granted.
In came a group in whose institutional memory the year 1976 should have made an indelible imprint, the Democratic Labour Party, but, again, I think few would disagree that there is the scent of superciliousness and overlording in the air again.
To wit: charges being brought against a civil servant for criticising the Government, the Prime Minister’s disparaging reference to those not belonging to a “political class”, the absence of official rebuff of the Central Bank governor’s NATION ban and later refusal to have any Press conference at all for the presentation of the bank’s second quarter report, and a minister’s talk of not caring about petitions.
Not forgetting the constant lashing out by the incumbents at whoever dares to publicly and firmly put a contrary position.
Still, we, the people, seem to believe in the goodwill of these politicians and in the use of methodologies that have never made much difference to them.
We have not brought any new means to bear in response to Government’s imperious disconnect or overlording overreach of one kind or another. It’s the same old, same old: blast off in letters to the Press and on call-in shows, rail among our friends and (I nearly forgot) sing “social commentary” calypsos. Look unconvinced to the Opposition. And hope that the next election comes fast.
The political directorate presses in on the people – and we flail around in “rum shop” venting, or by way of “Listen to the call-in programme tomorrow and hear muh” or “Wait till next calypso season” or “Boy, wait till next elections”.
As more people in more places simply sound off about poor, seemingly runaway governance and increasing evidence of the people’s tenuous control of their “governors”, our leaders show less inclination to respect the people’s stake.
Maybe they sense no potently watchdoggish, societally impactful intent in the people’s responses to governance.
Now, I see governance as having two strands: the crafting and delivery of (at least) satisfactory policy; and the control of how the authorities (especially elected officials) govern.
But while it is bad enough if a government does not assure wide-ranging, deep involvement of the people in arriving at and implementing suitable policies, it is a violation of the very core of the human spirit if government tramples the people’s democratic expectations.
In the face of such, we need activistic watchdogs.
Regrettably, there are no really seriously focused civil society organisations and entities that exercise themselves in the role of seriously guarding – so to speak – our cherished rights (beyond worker-related matters), values and expectations and acting in vigorous pursuit and defence of them.
The various bodies (apart from unions responding with stern intent in a narrow band of matters) mostly seem to think that influence and impact are constituted of making occasional pleading noises.
In case any “cracking heads” people think that I am recommending riotous behaviour (good lord, I don’t even suggest “revelrous” behaviour), lemme quickly disabuse wunna.
What I am speaking about is a more policing, active, focused, determined, impact-centred (this to me is the key thing) response to governance.
That may or may not from time to time involve marching, picketing and the like – but would certainly include various other forms of activism, full-of-intent petitions, litigation, lobbying, public education, getting well-placed people on board, utilising the media strategically, by experiential songs and other public presentations, even legitimate “rabble rousing” – all these with an intense focus on influence and impact.
I explored those more elaborately in The Message En Enough on April 2, 2013.
Our virtually singular recourse has been talk – which Barbadians treat like obeah. So instead of talk being a partner of creative, forceful focused action, talk about issues is our cultural end-point “abracadabra”. That is why we have all these social comment songs that are like soundtracks when there is no movie.
Don’t we understand that in places where the people actually cause change, they foment the activism about desired social change and then songs are made up to go with what is already under way? But here in the Caribbean we singing “protest” songs that are not the accompaniment to any protest. And you ever hear about activists with a seasonal mentality?
As it is, I think a lot of social comment calypso is mere play and a nurturer of mass apathy and passive-aggressiveness. Turn problems into songs, end of story. And, even if, David Rudder, the politicians cringe, they don’t change course.
“[Politicians] have no reason to fear when [somebody] in a mask (or in a masquerade), singing with a focus on making money and/or becoming popular (nothing wrong with either of those), and making absolutely no use of the real-real means of getting change, sings about this or that governance issue” (Ah quote muhself – from I Am Your Majesty, April 30, 2013).
Callers to call-in programmes probably think they are doing exactly what similarly engaged persons are doing in more robust democracies. Not. In such democracies those people are speaking with the parallel of vibrant action.
But here not only is the cart before the horse, we also seem to think that having the cart (talking, singing) is the same thing as having the horse (engaging in focused, impact-tailored action).
Listen: too much trust in the goodwill of governing powers or in the efficacy of speaking stern truth to those powers is dangerously naïve in a democracy.
Against the undermining of democracy, objectification and discriminatory treatment of women, lawyers and the police taking liberties with us, violation of our rights, languishing education, governing politicians living comfortably in the breezeway of low or no transparency and accountability (other than PR-saturated and influenced elections), we need civil society entities with intense specialised focus on staunching these things.
Occasional shouting in the direction of wrong is not the fit for the times. We need dedicated entities with an activistic mindset and intent.
• Sherwyn Walters is a writer who became a teacher, a song analyst, a broadcaster and an editor.
