Given the pluralistic and diverse nature of our constitutional and religious values, a common and legitimate aspiration of the public is to ensure the Government of the day subscribes to the cherished ideals of justice, security, accountability, transparency, ethics and morality in public life.This whole idea of capable governance was promised, promoted and advanced by the People's Partnership (PP) in the May 2010 general election. With so many publicly detestable and politically scandalous acts emerging on a weekly basis, the very tenets of these enshrined ideals so forcefully projected during the electoral campaign are now under threat. It brings once more to the fore the daunting task of governance, and the relevant question: Is the PP Government building on shifting sand or a firm foundation? It should be borne in mind that while the Government controlled media may attempt to manipulate the situation, they should also consider the words of Walter Lipmann that "news and truth are not the same thing". Can the PP Government do better?
The unholy trinity
Beguiled by the unholy trinity of lust for political power and authority, media exposure of the apparent greed for money and a growing dearth of moral, ethical and spiritual values, the PP coalition government appears to be currently unable and apparently unwilling to confront national issues squarely.
As such, it may be very well adopting a course of action that is highly contentious, arresting the attention of the national populace when it comes to critical and serious issues of accountability and transparency in public affairs. While the honourable Prime Minister posits that all is well with the Partnership, the question is: What do we understand by the meaning of "well", and is that really true?
Is the Oath of Office still relevant?
How does the Oath of Office factor in all of these situations? Let us examine the Oath of Office for Ministers or Parliamentary Secretary. It states as follows: I,---, do swear by ---that I will bear faith and allegiance to Trinidad and Tobago and will uphold the Constitution and the law, that I will conscientiously, impartially and to the best of my ability discharge my duties as ---and do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will." There is nothing in this Oath of Office to suggest that faith, allegiance or conscience must be surrendered to any political party, leader, even though one may be cognisant of the Government's policies. Some of the key words include, "upholding the Constitution and law", "do right to all manner of people", "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will". Bearing in mind all the misleading obfuscations of qualifications, favouritism, selective discrimination, favouring of contracts, drugs coming in at ports of entry, and numerous distortions of the truth.
The words of the late American leader comes to the fore: "Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe? Expediency asks the question: Is it political? Vanity asks the question: Is it popular? But conscience asks the question: Is it right? "There comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular, but one must take it simply because it is right." Thomas Jefferson in 1781 stated: "The spirit of the times may alter and will alter, our rulers will become corrupt and our people careless." Is this reflective of some of elements involved in the PP?
The Panday/Partap replacement
At the least, some of our political appointees do provide comic relief. According to a Gail Alexander report in the Guardian, on June 28, 2011, Mr Panday is still trying "to fathom why he was axed" after performing to the best of his ability, at times working till 3 in the morning and having no money to show" for those lengthy hours. Former minister Panday should know that a Consul General position is normally a career progression path for Foreign Service officers IV, a position lower than that of a permanent secretary, with limited salary, while having some diplomatic privilege and immunities. If taken, it would have been the position taken by the current non-career diplomat in Miami.
Is it a mathematical equation?
The Prime Minister, in a statement recorded by Richard Lord in the Guardian on June 23, 2011, when questioned about the revocation of Senator Panday's appointment, she intimated that he was sacked because, "I thought there are others who could better serve and I made my decision on that basis."
Now, that statement invites other questions, such as Subhas Panday's performance on the job and his mentoring and training of Minister Partap. And what will Minister Partap do better in terms of service to national security that Minister Panday could not do? What special service and assistance will Minister Partap bring to the national security arena, Minister Sandy, and the public? In a developing democracy as ours, we empower the Government with our votes, finance it with our taxes, and bolster it with our acquiescence. If we continue to remain passive in the face of so many consistent scandals, lack of accountability and lack of transparency in the decision making processes, whilst insulting the public's intelligence, we in fact endorse the Government's operations of the day. Next week: The Immigration Detention Centre and its international obligations.