IN AN EFFORT to promote an agenda of good governance, a number of people in our society have come together under the banner of The Nation Action Group to look at a range of issues facing the country. A number of articles will be carried in the SUNDAY SUN highlighting these concerns. Today we start with why there is need for integrity legislation.
BARBADIANS have witnessed first-hand what it means for a political party to campaign in poetry and govern in prose.
The poetry is contained in the manifesto of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) in 2008 when it promised: “The Democratic Labour Party will immediately introduce integrity legislation requiring a declaration of assets by public officials, a code of conduct for ministers…”
The prose is revealed in the fact that although integrity legislation in the form of the Prevention of Corruption Bill 2010 was passed by both houses of Parliament in 2012, it is yet to be proclaimed by way of the authorised signature of the Governor General. The bill would have died with the end of the last Parliament and it is not being talked about, far less revived.
In the House of Assembly, the Prime Minister endorsed the bill, recognising that it was consistent with the conventions of both the United Nations and the Organisation of American States, to which Barbados subscribes.
He expressed the view that the bill would ensure that “those values to which this country subscribes, would be protected from erosion and that those values are worth fighting for.”
Therefore, the reasonable expectation of electors, based on the contract made with the voters by the DLP through its manifesto, was that with the passing of the bill into law, our public officials would be governed by legislation that at its roots, sets the rules and principles of honest intentions as the basis of holding public office.
Nothing of the sort obtains and citizens who are mere onlookers, are rightfully concerned that there is perhaps no will on the part of the governors of our country on either side of the aisle, to impose strictures on themselves and others in positions of trust and authority.
Concerns over these provisions were raised by a minister who declared that he did not feel elected members of Parliament should “declare our assets to the world”.
This is a shocking revelation since this is precisely the intention of the act. And this is precisely the type of transparency that keeps politicians honest in the eyes of the world.
His arguments would, however, hold true for others who are in public life but who traditionally are not exposed to levels of corruption that political figures in our region and beyond have been confronted.
This group may include, but is not restricted to trade union leaders, judges and magistrates, permanent secretaries and heads of government departments. If this was one issue that may have stalled the legislation, there should be a method that could grandfather aspects of the law.
A compromise should be worked out to provide less stringent conditions on those who are exposed to bribery, but whose public office is less likely to be on the wish list of those seeking favours.
There is legitimate concern over the reach into the lives of some people in public life that the law identified. But it can be well argued that it could deter persons from seeking to serve in a public capacity. That would be a cost the country would have to bear. But it seems to us to be a necessary provision.
The ultimate test in this or any other attempt to prevent corruption creeping into our public life is the fundamental issue of the public good. Not to do it and to shroud public offices in secrecy would be harmful to the public good.
The public good should at all times be pre-eminent.