At last, our politics is looking a bit like politics. A vibrant national debate (sometimes still reduced to antics and gallery) is raging in our society on a real issue. Unfortunately, the issue has arisen not as a deliberate attempt by politicians to engage the population in a really useful and concrete debate. It has risen out of a chance event or series of events in an international sporting organisation involving a government minister. This debate is not new. It is, as is now popular in the world of movie making, a sequel to a debate that was raging almost exactly one year ago.
That debate-Conflict of Interest 1-arose out of the question: Is there possible conflict of interest regarding a minister of government holding a leading position in an international sporting organisation? At least that is how I referred to it in a letter to the press of June 10 last year. In my little two cents on the issue, I expressed the view that this matter had come to some kind of conclusion, unlike many others in the past, but it was limited to a narrow definition of the issues involved. My letter concluded with the following:
"I trust that we will get to looking at matters of governance with much broader perspectives than uni-dimensional and so indicate our maturity as a society. For the moment, the ball is really still in the minister's court." Well, in the current sequel, sadly several contributors continue to seek to take a very profound matter that can provide guidance for the future conduct of elected, and even non-elected public officials and reduce it to, frankly, sometimes very childish considerations.
The law-and-order approach continues as some say that whether a senior Cabinet minister should continue to perform his governmental duties in the face of serious allegations of misconduct in another capacity (given that those allegations include matters which amount to criminal behaviour alleged to have occurred on our own soil) is a matter simply of "innocent until proven guilty." The minister himself has suggested (along with others) that the issue is really a matter that does not concern his ministerial role since it arose in the other organisation, his holding senior office in which was the subject of part 1 of the debate.
And there are more bizarre suggestions that if one is the minister's friend one cannot hold a view on this matter that is contrary to his own since this is a matter of friendship or "towing the line" and not a matter of principle. Further, there are those who have already concluded that the circumstances under which these very allegations took place cast doubt on the credibility of (the minister's) accuser(s). Some even want us to delve into the rules and regulations of the international sporting organisation, I imagine, to determine for ourselves their issue. Yet they shout to the top of their voices: Don't call on him to step aside until the matter is concluded! While they have already prejudged the matter. Allow me to inject two considerations into this debate. Firstly, should those who hold elected office be subject to standards of conduct less than those who serve in the administrative structures of professional public service that support their governmental offices?
Take public servants who may commit an infraction, whether at or outside of the workplace, which amounts to misconduct. They are likely to face disciplinary action based on Chapter 8 of the Service Commission's Regulations. The likely infractions are now contained in codes of conduct in each of the services and include issues that amount to "conflict of interest" and "bringing the service into disrepute."
Such a public officer is faced with nothing more than allegations of inappropriate behaviour may be interdicted (suspended) by the service commission if in its opinion "the public interest or the repute of the public service requires it..." (Regulation 88(1)).
Again where disciplinary proceedings or even criminal proceedings in a court are "about to be instituted," the commission will interdict the officer and even reduce his pay if "the commission is of the opinion that the public interest requires that the officer should forthwith cease to perform the functions of his office..." (Regulation 89). Further, the Constitution at section 129 was amended in 2000 to introduce the concept that a public officer once convicted of any offence in any court of law is presumed to be guilty of misconduct and "the commission may thereupon dismiss or otherwise punish the officer without the institution of any disciplinary proceedings" (section 129(5)). Despite the fact that subsection 4 says that "no penalty may be imposed on any public officer except as a result of disciplinary proceedings." (section 129(4)).
The effect of this is that teachers, cleaners, clerks etc have been subject to disciplinary action and penalties for being involved in quarrels with neighbours, resisting physical attacks at their places of residence, for example. Regardless of our opinion as to their fairness, these are the strict standards to which those who serve government are subject. Yet in the current debate there is a demand being raised that those to whose direction the public officer is subject must have applied to them a standard lesser than that applied to their subordinates. Secondly, does what one does outside of the confines of the office one holds have no effect on one's office?
One view in the current debate is that it is a FIFA matter, as the minister himself has proclaimed on his return to the country. Well if that were the case, why did he proceed to hold a public political activity in his capacity as Member of Parliament and proceed to pronounce on the FIFA matter? If the capacities are so separate, how come the person at the centre of the debate can so easily move issues from one arena to the next, except when it comes to protecting "the repute of the public office" as applies to public officers.
The question of bringing one's office into disrepute has nothing to do with innocence of guilt per se, but the fact of the effect that the alleged or proven behaviour has on the office, not on the individual. Any worker employed even in the private sector is liable to disciplinary action at the workplace for issues arising outside of the workplace.
In this debate, what is at stake is the establishment of standards for the conduct for those who hold the highest public offices and who should be exemplars to those over whom they exercise public power.
My hope is that this round of the debate will come to just conclusions on the matters of conflict of interest and the standards to be upheld in the conduct of public office. These are not matters of popularity, perceptions of hard work or such considerations. These are serious matters of principle and defining good governance. Every citizen should join in this debate and help define our future.
Clyde Weatherhead
Trincity