Having been delayed for review due to concerns about its onerous demands for disclosure, the Prevention Of Corruption Bill made its way back to the Barbados Parliament, to a reception no less hostile than on its first introduction. Whilst the bill was eventually passed this time with the loud concerns about its “unsuitability” to Barbados and its potential for turning away potentially qualified public servants sufficiently muted, unfortunately the undercurrents in the debate continued to suggest an air of “reluctant acceptance” on the part of members.
Foremost was the constant reminder that in passing the bill, the Government was largely fulfilling its “obligations to the international community”, given Barbados’ participation in a number of anti-corruption treaty agreements. As a rationale for a bill which fulfilled an important manifesto promise, it was odd that external compulsion rather than local will seemed pre-eminent.
Ironically, the debate was taking place against the backdrop of a recent report by Transparency International, which rated Barbados very highly as a jurisdiction with a strong anti-corruption tradition. In both Houses, therefore, far from raging against the evils of corruption, member after member felt compelled to engage in self-congratulation, thus diminishing the burning impulse for the legislation.
Public myths
Indeed, the only moments when members spoke with any fire were when they sought to dispel the public myths about politicians’ wealth or unique capacities for corruption. Whilst it was perfectly correct to undo false perceptions about the personal wealth of politicians, a debate on an anti-corruption bill was certainly not the place for such lectures. Sadly, one listened in vain for the voice of a genuine anti-corruption champion.
This tendency of pouring cold water on the bill was reflected in Senator Geoffrey Cave’s contribution, which repeated the earlier concerns about the wide reach of the bill and its capacity for capturing porpoises when sharks were the intended target. The concern was that members of school boards, for example, should not be subject to the rules of financial disclosure, nor was it fair that spouses and offspring should be required to make financial disclosures.
Missing in all of this, however, is a deep understanding of the responsibilities that distinguish public from private life. From the earliest days of Plato it had always been felt that public office should be made as unappealing as possible to attract only the most sincerely committed few who were willing to sacrifice self in pursuit of the public good. The remaining self-centred majority should confine themselves to private life.
It is disappointing that on both occasions when the integrity bill was debated, no member couched the debate in such terms. Instead, there was underlying resentment that such onerous requirements were being imposed on the poor, overwhelmed public officials. The bill seemed to have been passed, without enthusiasm, merely to fulfil the manifesto promise.
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, specializing in regional affairs. Email [email protected]
