Are we really so corrupt?

WE ARE not really satisfied with the criteria used by Transparency International (TI) to rank countries on its Corruption Perception Index (CPI), but since the CPI is the only global assessment of its kind we really have no choice but to regard this annual exercise seriously. Last week, TI announced its 2004 CPI which showed that TT had again fallen in the agency’s one-to-ten rating, receiving a score of 4.2 which placed us 53rd out of 146 nations on the index. Indeed, since TT first appeared on the CPI in 2001 with a score of 5.3, its rating has fallen consistently, to 4.9 in 2002 and 4.6 in 2003. In attempting to explain this, Petra Bridgemohan, director of the TT arm of TI said that TT is being seen as more corrupt on the basis of data from sources that were used to rate the country in the last two years.

“We therefore suggest to the Government, that based on these international, independent reports, the Government’s anti-corruption systems are not being perceived as effective.” As an instinctive reaction, we must first express some concern over the use of the word “perceived” as it relates to corruption. How much value, for example, should we place on TI’s perception of corruption in our country? Maybe Bridgemohan could be a little more transparent herself and tell us what are these international and independent reports which provide data about corruption in TT. Secondly, we must wonder why the Government’s anti-corruption systems are not being perceived as effective. Does TI know something about TT that we do not? Is it that the agency believes that not enough was done to deal with corruption under the UNC government which eventually collapsed in 2001 as a result of allegations by three of its front-line ministers?

As far as that is concerned, TI must know that a Commission of Inquiry sat for several months investigating the biggest scandal under the UNC, the Piarco Development project, out of which a number of charges were laid. In addition, probes by the Integrity Commission has led to the indictment of at least one minister. And even now, in the case of allegations levelled against Housing Minister Keith Rowley, the Government has not only referred the matter to a revitalised Integrity Commission but has also decided to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the charges, indicating its desire to resolve this controversy to the satisfaction of all. In the wider context, we are surprised to learn that the Government is being guided in its policies by an anti-corruption expert, Bernard de Speville, who advises a three-pronged strategy of enforcement, prevention and education.

But while we are not quite happy with TT’s continuing decline on TI’s CPI, we welcome the general concern over the need for transparency and the maintenance of the highest standards of integrity in the conduct of the people’s business. In our view, a commitment to transparency is just as vital as instituting effective measures to eliminate corruption. The observance or practice of the one, in fact, would indicate a determination to ensure the effectiveness of the other. As far as we are concerned, the Government would not receive a higher rating in terms of transparency than it has with respect to fighting corruption. This newspaper has repeatedly called on the Government for greater transparency in its transactions, particularly those relating to the vital economic interests of the country and we are still awaiting a satisfactory response.