The great ego

Ever since Mr Manning last year announced his multi-billion dollar schemes to build this and that multi-storey building, he has been criticised from all quarters. That Mr Manning is aware of these criticisms is revealed by his saying, at a signing ceremony last week for two new construction projects, that "some people" consider the Government’s commitment to these huge projects "represents an expression of the ego of some, rather than a commitment to national development." But Mr Manning misrepresents the critics’ case even as he admits it. It is not "some people" who are against his Tarouba Sporting Complex, his Government Campus, and his new Parliament building. It is a significant majority of persons who are opposed to these projects at this time. Nor has this majority been criticising the "ego of some" — nobody has criticised the egos of Lenny Saith or Ken Julien or Keith Rowley or Colm Imbert. All such criticism has been directed at Patrick Manning, because he is the one pushing for all these projects.

Now a couple of the projects make economic and political sense. The waterfront complex, for example, may well pay returns on its investment, including as it does a hotel and office buildings for the private sector. Similarly, the National Academy for the Performing Arts may also pay dividends, if it helps professionalise this country’s cultural products.

After all, the national Carnival is one of the most significant revenue-earners in the non-energy sector, with UWI-based researchers having demonstrated that the festival makes a 900 percent return on what the government puts into it. But if the aesthetic of the Carnival degenerates, becoming an imitation of Brazil or New Orleans, then tourists will inevitably start going to Brazil or New Orleans instead. And, as the recent "restoration" of the Port-of-Spain lighthouse shows, the aesthetic sensibilities of persons in high places are completely cosquelle.

So good arguments can be made for these two initiatives. But consider Mr Manning’s rationale for a new $370 million project — a "Social Development Tower." This, he argues, by bringing all the agencies of the Social Development Ministry under one roof, will improve the Ministry’s ability to serve the population. But, really, can Mr Manning be serious? Does he really think, in this age of faxes, e-mails and cellular phones, that the country will derive a $370 million advantage by having a Ministry in one building? And consider the Ministry chosen - social development, which is an area where efficiency is best served by decentralization and by having units that are community-based and so more familiar with the specific problems and needs of each community.

We will not reiterate the macro-economic arguments that have also been voiced about these projects, save to remind Mr Manning that they could well worsen inflation and that, given the shortage of labour and materials, practicality alone would suggest postponement. But we do not expect Mr Manning, who is also the country’s Finance Minister, to be persuaded by economic arguments, since he clearly does not take fiscal factors into account when deciding such matters. What is more curious is that this professional politician, the country’s longest serving parliamentarian, is also ignoring the political unpopularity of his stance.

Which, perhaps, just proves what the critics say — that what Mr Manning has is not a great vision, but a great ego.