Former Barbadian Prime Minister Owen Arthur who died on Monday has been commemorated in tributes from all over the region. He had served an unprecedented three terms as head of government in Barbados, and came to office with a background in economics rather than law, which was the qualification of choice for most of the older generation of Caricom leaders. He had, as a consequence, a pragmatic approach to government, and it is not surprising that his skills propelled him to become effectively the architect of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. As a staunch believer in regional integration he was too a promoter of the CCJ as the final court of appeal for Caricom nations, and an advocate for the University of the West Indies as well as the airline LIAT.
But it was for his commitment to democracy that he will be most remembered in this country, where he discharged his last official duty on this earth as head of the Commonwealth Observer Group to the March 2nd elections. Thereafter he had no hesitation in reproaching the de facto government on various matters relevant to that poll, and the failure to deliver final accurate results.
Mr Arthur was a firm believer in the social partnership model in economic affairs which operated in Barbados, and it was while delivering an address on that subject in Jamaica in 2015, that he made a remark to the effect that the Caribbean could not afford to “waste its democracy” like some other nations which could shut down their government from time to time. Little could he have anticipated that within five years he would encounter a Caricom administration, no less, which would ‘waste its democracy’ − and that in a more extreme context than the one he was referring to − and which to all intents and purposes would shut down legitimate government.
In its report on the March 2nd elections, the Commonwealth Observer Group which the former Barbados Prime Minister headed had deemed the Region Four count by Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo as neither credible nor transparent, going on to say that at no time did the leadership of Gecom halt or rectify these “blatant instances of disregard for the rule of law and electoral ethics, despite its vested authority to independently ensure credible elections”.
This was in line with what the other observer groups, both local and foreign, had to say, but it was in his comments subsequently that his strength of feeling on the subject of the betrayal of democratic principles here revealed themselves. No Caribbean leader, not even incoming Caricom Chair Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines, could have been more uncompromising or more direct. As Sir Shridath Ramphal observed, Mr Arthur spoke “truth to power”, going on to say, “May his memory be honoured in the upholding of his candour.”
One cannot avoid the uncomfortable feeling that caretaker President Granger, committed as he is to the well-being of the Africans of this nation, persuaded himself that he would be indulged by African heads of government in sister territories, and by former Caricom heads such as Mr Arthur and Mr Bruce Golding who headed the OAS mission. But for the modern Caricom, principle and the need for adherence to the Charter for Civil Society override any commitment to a constituency, ethnic or otherwise.
This may have come as a shock to the caretaker President, who seems to have struck out indirectly. There was initially, for example, the matter of Foreign Minister Karen Cummings, who flounced into the Region Four headquarters where she had no right to be, and threatened to remove observers’ accreditation. It has never been clear who sent her, and Mr Granger has never reproved her or disassociated himself from her actions, but Mr Arthur wasted no time in his response:
“I speak on behalf of the Commonwealth, the largest concentration of people in the world,” he told her, “and I am not going to have, not me, the Com-monwealth, disrespected by a threat to take away the accreditation of the Commonwealth,” he told her.
But he was particularly acerbic in his defence of PM Gonsalves, who had said among other things that Caricom would not “tolerate anybody stealing an election,” and that it was his expectation that Gecom would accept the results of the recount. It was the ever crass Mr Joseph Harmon who was dispatched on that occasion to hold forth in offensive terms about the St Vincentian Prime Minister, something which caused deep offence to Mr Arthur. “He [Harmon] is not a Caribbean leader and your leader needs to tell him he is out of order. Your leader should not be allowing Joe Harmon to be attacking other leaders in the Caribbean in this vitriolic way,” he said.
In one interview he described Mr Harmon as a “mere utensil” in this matter, and remarked on another occasion that “the people of the Caribbean are not going to be intimidated by Joe Harmon or his ilk.” And for the latter to call on PM Mia Mottley to lambaste a Caricom colleague (Mr Gonsalves) was “ridiculous” in his view, and would reduce the region to the “theatre of the absurd.”
That the de facto President may have authorised his spokesman’s attacks is suggested by the fact that he described Mr Harmon’s comments as being “quite correct.” If nothing else it is symptomatic of how out of touch he is with regional thinking.
The former Barbados Prime Minister was equally frank about the consequences for Guyana should the current government pursue its current trajectory. “Leaders of Caricom as a class would rather free and fair elections [and] if the government does not want to accept the results and still wants to stay in office then Caricom will have to decide whether to suspend Guyana,” he warned.
After all, he continued, the world had not only watched but had been present in Guyana for the March 2nd election and to fail to accept its results would be to set Guyana up as a rogue state; “Guyana cannot withstand the ire of the international community,” he cautioned. And perhaps in a personal piece of advice for Mr Granger, he said there was no graceful way to lose in public; it was a matter of accepting the will of the people and recognising it was not a personal attack on you, the politician. Mr Arthur himself had lost two elections in Barbados.
The former PM’s experience with the social partnership model may have made him more than usually sensitive to the rents in Guyana’s political fabric. That said, various observer groups had raised similar concerns after previous elections. When presenting the Commonwealth Observer Group’s report he told a press conference: “A key issue repeatedly raised in our interactions was the urgent need for constitutional and electoral reform to address what stakeholders view as a complex and multi-faceted polarisation of the nation. These divisions are reflected in the composition, structure and operations of Gecom itself.” Reform is not something which any of this country’s political leaders have so far been prepared to countenance.
In his tribute to Mr Arthur, PM Gonsalves wrote: “Owen Arthur was a true Caribbean man with a deeply-rooted Barbadianness, steeped in our culture and way of life, devoted always to the further ennoblement of our Caribbean civilisation, while at the same time learning from the universalism and well-springs of world civilisations. He loved our Caribbean and its manifestations in cricket, dominoes, food, music, literature, poetry, and joyous living. He loved our people and strove to make their lives better.”
Prior to his brief hospitalization, Mr Gonsalves said that the former Barbadian PM was “deeply agitated about the imminent threat to democracy in Guyana …” This will not surprise Guyanese. He has already found his place in their collective memory for his services to democracy here.
