by CLYDE MASCOLL
In Barbados, there are two types  of oligarchy associated with politics – one that seeks to influence power  by way of contributions in expectation of some return, and the other  that hopes to receive contributions.  The former uses its wealth to handpick the party and by extension the leader it wants in the circumstances,  and the latter promises its loyalty  to the leader and party of choice.
Not so long ago, in fact just over  66 years ago, an income qualification  of £25 was required to enable a Barbadian to exercise the right to vote; so wealth has always played a part  in our politics. But it is inconceivable  to think that having struggled so hard to get the franchise that to this day,  the political process is still being influenced so heavily by the dollar.
Will it end? Yes, if the fight becomes once again a fight for the conscience  of our people; the conscience may vary over time.    
Perhaps the period of fighting  for the social conscience of this nation is best exemplified in the struggle for the leadership of the labour movement in the aftermath of the workers’ rebellion in 1937 and the removal of property  and income requirements for voting and membership of the House in April 1950. This followed on the passing of the bill to grant adult suffrage.   
In the early 1960s, the focus shifted to the economic conscience of the nation and by 1966 it was the political conscience in the form of nationhood  or Independence. The seed of “free secondary education” was planted  and the evidence of its germination  is with us today.
However, some members of the oligarchy still feel an entitlement to exercise pecuniary and non-pecuniary influence on the political process from which they hope to derive pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits.  The influence is evident!
It seems no longer the case that political campaigns would be fought  on issues to advance the country’s development, but rather to show  the perceived dirt of the opponent.
Strangely enough, as the society becomes more aware, it appears to have a bigger appetite for such politics and so the interest of the electorate is wrapped  in entertainment of some sort.
The time is already here for a politics of conscience to take centre stage again as it is clear that the country’s journey is at a critical juncture, where  the converging events demand  a second look at our Independence.
This is not about becoming a republic or not; rather it is about the next phase of Independence that is more to do with the economic than the political system.  
Unfortunately for the same oligarchy, the economic future of Barbados is inextricably linked to that of the region and the conscience, to which is referred, must take on a bigger dimension with the emphasis on functional cooperation within CARICOM.
There is merit in criticising the regional movement for putting too much emphasis on economic integration and not enough on the range of activities that contribute to enhancing the quality  of life of our people.
However, it must never be forgotten that economic growth and development is the means by which poverty is ultimately reduced, health care is improved, education enhanced, job opportunities are created, gender equality is achieved, cultural cohesion  is forged and even drug use is avoided.
These are some of the pillars  upon which functional cooperation  in CARICOM has been structured  and they are people-centred.   
Given the path of progress that has been defined for us, it is obvious that our future has to be similarly defined and pursued. And though there is  no way that the current economic circumstances could be as dire as they were in the 1930s and beyond, we seem to lack the drive to help ourselves.
Perhaps our leadership lacks  the conscience to recognise the real strength of the people!