Politicians should be careful

According to an exclusive report carried in the Sunday Newsday, the Commission of Inquiry into the Landate affair, in which it was alleged that materials and machinery were removed from the site of the Scarborough Hospital, found that Dr Rowley "displayed a total lack of discretion" and advised that he "should be more sanguine in his relations in matters concerning the development of the project as further issues of impropriety may be raised, especially because he had a beneficial interest to which he had admitted."

Strictly speaking, however, Dr Rowley admitted no such thing.. What he did say was that the project to which materials were diverted was his wife’s concern, not his. But this is just the kind of spin that gets politicians distrusted. Indeed, if Dr Rowley had been concerned about separating his public responsibilities from his wife’s private affairs, he would not even have visited the Landate site when in Tobago to, by his own testimony, give progress reports to Mrs Rowley.

Surely Dr Rowley, had he thought about it, must have realised that even peripheral involvement in a construction project would have left him open to charges of corruption. This would have been the case no matter what portfolio he held, but the fact that he heads the Housing Ministry just exacerbated the whole matter. So how could Dr Rowley not be concerned about this possibility?

We can think of only two possible answers. The first is that, knowing himself to be involved in no underhand or illegal business, he was worried about possible negative perceptions. The second answer is that, in our political culture, such matters of perception are not significant enough for politicians to take them on. In other words, since this is the way things are done in this country, politicians feel free to ignore the niceties required by their posts.

However, such an attitude is neither acceptable nor, as Dr Rowley has now discovered, wise. Were he adhering to the best standards of public office, Dr Rowley, immediately on assuming the Housing portfolio if not before, would have issued a public statement giving detailed information about his wife’s venture and his own involvement (even if such involvement were confined to visiting the site once a fortnight to monitor progress). Instead, he remained silent and, when the issue was uncovered, even asked if his public position should stymie his family’s business. (The answer, actually, is Yes.)

Had he taken such steps beforehand, instead of trying to do damage control after, Dr Rowley could have avoided the allegations of corruption which, as he well knows, will now stick like tar in some quarters even though he has been cleared of any wrong-doing. Our politicians tend to treat with indifference suggestions from the public that they should take steps to ensure that ethical standards are adhered to. This is why calls for campaign finance reform, truth commissions, strengthening of the Ombudsman’s and Integrity Commission’s offices and so cause barely a blip on the political radar. The politicians forget that such measures are intended to protect not only the public, but politicians as well.