Understanding public life responsibilities

Those are problems in even the most advanced nations. The difference between them and us, however, is that they have legal mechanisms and a political culture which keep such transgressions to reasonable limits.

Here, however, we have judges, State board members, and Independent Senators demanding exemption from declaring their assets. The judges claim that the requirement is unconstitutional; the possible nominees to State boards don’t want anyone knowing their net worth; and the Senators say they don’t influence decisions. All these arguments, however, ignore the fundamental principle that informs public life in more advanced polities - that, when you accept public office, then you are no longer a private citizen and must therefore allow yourself to be subject to public scrutiny.

To be sure, the gutter press in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States carry this too far, since this principle does not mean that the individual’s personal life should be scrutinised. But it is certainly expected that a person’s assets and financial networks would be known, so if there is any conflict or unexplained income, a red flag would be raised. Indeed, one of the ironies in the attempt to get exemption from our Integrity in Public Life Act is that the declaration of assets is secret, made only to the members of the Commission itself. That is not the case in many other countries, where such declarations can be accessed by any citizen. That is democracy in action, but we retain to a great extent the hierarchical mentality of the colonial days. Indeed, that mentality was displayed by the Commission itself, when it overstepped its authority to grant judges an exemption even as it approached the judiciary for an opinion on this same matter.

Speaking at the post-Cabinet briefing on Thursday, Prime Minister Patrick Manning made it clear that the Government was prepared to exempt judges and State board members. There is no little irony here, since the net was cast so wide in the first place because of the insistence of the then-Opposition PNM. The present turnaround shows that their arguments then were not informed by cogent analysis, but by opposing for opposing’s sake.

But Mr Manning’s present arguments also hold little water. He asserts, for example, that requiring judges to declare their assets would compromise the independence of the judiciary. In what way? The real factor that compromises the judiciary is the Government controlling their annual budget.

As for State board members, the problem there has always been incompetence and corruption. So, while removing the requirement might assist in the first area, it might also actually make it more likely that corrupt persons offer themselves. Finally, while Mr Manning did not deal with the Independent Senators, we have just one question — if the Senators do not think they influence decisions, what are they in the Parliament for?

What is reflected in all this is a certain immaturity. That is a cultural problem that will have to be solved before an Integrity Commission or any other kind of legislation will be effective. But Mr Manning can’t wait for that - he has to find a political solution now. So, given the attitudes he faces, he may have no choice to but to change the integrity legislation as demanded by these groups.