ONE BAD ‘ALPHA’
I often think there is what I call an “alpha moment” in the life of every executive — a singular action (or reaction) that becomes the hallmark of that government, an act that says “this is what we are or will be like.” Sometimes we can easily recognise the alpha moment when it is happening. On other occasions, it becomes perceptible only with hindsight. For me the alpha moment in the life of the new, new PNM was in December 2001 when Patrick Manning appointed his wife Hazel, Minister of Education. It was not a glorious alpha moment. With his action, Patrick Manning branded his regime with the word, “Nepotism,” arguably the most dismal statement to a society that was seemingly collapsing because it was rotten to its core. There was another message in Mr Manning handing his wife the Education Ministry and it was more menacing. It read, “I’m in absolute authority so ask me no questions.”
As I have written on many occasions, I steupsed and turned off my TV set when I saw Hazel about to take the oath of office. It was nothing personal. I simply could not believe that her husband, a man who had stood and campaigned against the “UNC’s improper behaviour in government” would begin his reincarnation as PM by giving his wife a Cabinet post. Hazel had no track record in politics or education; yet she was being rewarded with a mega ministry and would be first among equals while others who were more experienced and more deserving had been handed crumbs. I raise this matter of “alpha moments” today because it is my view that the Prime Minister — for the good of Trinidad and Tobago — may have to start looking for a new Minister of Education. Indeed, Mr Manning may be left with little option, if he wants to show the nation he is a true leader, given the recent allegations of conflict of interest surrounding Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s land development project in Tobago. Why? Because Patrick Manning cannot be part of the solution if he is part of the problem and in my opinion; this is exactly what he is.
Let me explain. Last week, while perusing and discussing the Integrity in Public Life Act, 2000, a few of us came to the conclusion that Mr Manning might have violated the Act’s Code of Conduct by appointing his wife Hazel to office in December 2001. It was not a far-fetched supposition. Section 24 states that a person in public life has to be fair and impartial in exercising his public duty and afford no undue preferential treatment to any individual. Is this how Mr Manning behaved when he appointed Hazel? Additionally, according to Budget figures, Hazel’s Ministry is receiving a lot more money for travelling and advertising than many others. Can this difference be justified in terms of need, results and performance? More importantly, though, the Prime Minister is bound by the Code of Conduct’s prohibition “of using office for the improper advancement of his own or his family’s personal or financial interests or directly or indirectly using his office for private gain.”
When he appointed his wife, did he and his family not gain an extra ministerial salary and a big one at that? Was this not using his office to advance his wife in an improper way given that, as I have said she had no political experience in politics or education? Was Manning not also seeking to advance his own political agenda, buttress his political fortunes when he made his wife a Minister? These are all fair questions. One only has to look at the way Mr Manning shoots up from his chair in Parliament the minute Hazel’s name is mentioned by the Opposition. (It never occurs to him though, that it is he who put her in the line of political fire.)
The Integrity Act’s Code of Conduct also states, “For the purposes of this Act, a conflict of interest is deemed to arise if a person in public life or any person exercising a public function were to make or participate in the making of a decision in the execution of his office and at the same time knows or ought reasonably to have known, that in the making of the decision, there is an opportunity either directly or indirectly to further his private interests or that of a member of his family.” Can we not conclude that it is very possible then that one of Mr Manning’s very first acts as Prime Minister was a conflict of interest? Are we to believe that this possible conflict of interest is lesser than any others because we are talking about the Prime Minister and his wife? I think that precisely because he is the PM, the proper example must be set. However, conflict of interest seems to be an issue, which many of us wish to conveniently dismiss as “nonsense,” as “much ado about nothing.” We would be foolhardy to think like this.
Conflict of interest means that at the time of decision-making a person is not thinking of the public good alone, but of himself and/ or of some group or individual. In the case of Hazel Manning’s appointment, of who was the Prime Minister thinking? Conflict of interest is extremely dangerous to a country’s present and future development for many reasons. The most obvious of its perils is that the citizenry always loses because people don’t get the representation they deserve as conflict of interest usually affects the quality, quantity and distribution of monies and services. It thus, benefits mainly the people at the top — regardless of race. The rich get richer, the poor poorer. It most damages a society because it sends a message to the population that self-serving conduct is acceptable and that there is no justice, except for the corrupt and powerful. For these reasons and many more, most developed countries have a strict code of conduct for public officials as do several developing nations. Setting up such norms is seen as fundamental to the maintenance of a stable, democratic and just society.
Here in TT conflict of interest seems to concern few. The Prime Minister talks at length about development, but he sees development as tower cranes and construction, ignoring the philosophical foundation on which a nation must be built. As for the Integrity Commission, it seems not to realise it has a proactive role to play in keeping the nation democratic. Rather, it is asleep, which is why I have repeatedly insisted that the register of interests be made public as it is in other countries. I very much doubt that Patrick Manning will understand my point, replace Hazel and truly start constructing a developed nation. Even though three years have elapsed since he appointed his wife a Minister, and though his Government’s unpopularity is increasing, the Prime Minister still can’t see he needs a new, positive “alpha moment” and that the nation is desperate for one. All he sees is new buildings. It seems Mr Manning possesses neither 2020 vision nor hindsight.
Columnist’s note: No Red House for Manning returns on
November 7, 2004.
Comments
"ONE BAD ‘ALPHA’"