#BTColumn – Unforced errors

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

by Charles Cooke

Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley will certainly go down in history as one of Barbados’ finest prime ministers. A much-respected leader on the world stage, it would come as no surprise to see her nominated for the highest offices of the United Nations at some point in the future.

That being said, I am flummoxed to see the honorable PM make at least two “unforced errors” (to coin a phrase used in sports) in the last few months raising concerns over her political acumen which heretofore seemed unparalleled.

The first of these “unforced errors” is naming Rihanna as a National Hero. (Let me state here that I applaud the worldwide achievements and acclaim of Rihanna and am cognisant of the condition of our hearts where a (person is) “not without honour except in his hometown” – a label that could be attributed to the human condition).

Rihanna deserves all the accolades but to be named a National Hero at such an early stage in her life and career is unfair as it puts enormous pressure on her to lead a life of such impeccable and exemplary asceticism that any deviation unleashes the hounds of microscopic analysis and criticisms. Already we see examples of this.

Does anyone know what constitutes the criteria for being named a National Hero? Is it fame? Wealth? Philanthropy? Being famous, wealthy and philanthropic should not be the only criteria or even carry undue weight in the determination of national awards for any country.

We only have to turn on our TVs to see any number of famous, wealthy and philanthropic persons that would make us cringe in horror should their countries award them their highest honour.

This brings us back to Rihanna. In 2009, Rihanna was famous, wealthy (probably not as wealthy as she is today) and philanthropic. Would the PM at that time have considered her to be named a National Hero?

Would the current PM, had she been in office, have acted with such alacrity in bestowing that honour? I doubt it. Why? What has changed materially?

Only that she became more famous, richer and more philanthropic? If not then in 2009, why now? If it is the degree of the three factors mentioned then almost all Bajans have no chance of ever being named a National Hero.

I would hazard a guess that Rihanna was considered too young back then and liable to be besieged by all the attendant factors, complications, tests of judgement and decision making that confront many in her industry.

A perfect segue to unforced error No.2 – the proposal to name an 18-year-old to the Senate. I do not know the individual being considered and he may very well be the smartest scholar in Barbados. That is beside the point. Barbados has a long history of producing extremely bright and talented youngsters and will continue to do so. But were any of them then and any of them now suited for or geared to sit in the Senate chambers?

The answer is no.

The Senate in the Westminster model of parliament is considered to be a chamber of “sober second thought” where lived experiences and exposure to a myriad of complex circumstances and situations create within oneself a body of work upon which to draw in the decision-making process.

An 18-year-old simply does not yet have these “lived experiences”. These “lived experiences” show themselves when older people often say “I wish I knew then what I know now”.

No 18-year-old can say that. It cannot be learned in a text book. “Lived experiences” allow us to bring gravitas and heft to matters under consideration.

The PM is doing this youngster a great disservice and he will forever be tarnished with the brush of being the subject of a constitutional amendment for political gain.

The argument that if an 18-year-old is allowed to vote then he should be allowed to sit in the Senate is laughably facile and a non sequitur. To hear that logic coming from someone as esteemed as the PM is cause for worry.

It is too late for the PM to correct error #1 but she can put an end to the frustratingly aberrant and distracting policy proposal of error No.2. Failure to do so would lead one to conclude that the Cabinet and advisors are “rubber stampers” to each whimsical idea brought before them verifying that Bajan phrase “one can’t tell the other to come back”.

This column was offered as a Letter to the Editor