Corruption is generally not a major problem in Barbados, but some US companies have reported unfair treatment by Barbados’ Customs and Excise Department. Other US companies have reported efforts by political actors to trade political support for payment or partial project ownership. – Barbados Investment Climate Statement, 2015, U.S. Department of State.
VERY QUIETLY, if anything can be done “quietly’ in this age of almost instantaneous communication, the State Department recently published its Investment Climate Statement with the startling complaints by companies about corrupt people.
While I am reasonably certain it would have crossed the desks of many in Government and the Opposition, there has yet to be a public response from either side to these damning allegations.
I was immediately struck by the careful selection of words by the State Department, which has a long history of employing curious and oftentimes cynical euphemisms to cloak provocative accusations and even lethal actions, in this very broad reference to “political actors”.
Parenthetically, does anyone remember the now infamous use of the expression “terminate with extreme prejudice” which emerged, if memory serves, during the Vietnam disaster?
Note the statement does not refer to “politicians”; that would indict the entire class of the serving political directorate, previous representatives and the announced potential candidates.
Given this generalised reference, rather than a more specific, carefully defined term to characterise the accused corrupt in Barbados, those of us who only vote, attend mass meetings or interface with the political directorate, would at a simplistic level be caught within the parameters of the expression “political actors”.
I suspect that was not the definition or intent the State author intended to convey.
A working definition: manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedures in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth.
So, who then, are these corrupt “political actors” seeking to trade political support for payment or partial project ownership with prospective American investors?
The raw intelligence data and business reports that might have informed such a report by State would assist those in authority here in their fight to identify and root out corrupt “actors” sullying Barbados’ good name.
Unfortunately, it has become a commonplace in our political interaction for those seeking office to level the charge of corruption against opponents and even promise tough legislation to combat the perceived problem.
The reality is, however, that the attainment of office seems to be accompanied by a diminution of political will and the crusading fervour of opposition politics.
You might ask: when have we ever jailed or otherwise punished a politician or “political actor” for corruption?
The election manifestoes of political parties, active, nonfunctioning or extinct, are replete with pledges of anti-corruption laws, integrity in public life and freedom of information legislation.
Regrettably, the failure to enact the promised legislation (regularly accompanied by a farcical timeline!) is often as a result of what Errol Barrow referred to as “enlightened self-interest” or a combination of an acknowledgement of those wielding power close to the politicians and the falling values of a firmly entrenched political class within a community whose mores are disintegrating.
It is a source of much disappointment that a country which has scored consistently within the top ranks of those adjudged to be among the least corrupt in the world, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), that Barbados more than a decade ago signed the United Nations Convention on Corruption and the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, but has ratified neither.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent.
Â
Â
