On the face of it, leaders have little in common with looters, except the similar number of letters in both words. Sadly, there is growing concern of a far more sinister link as highlighted in the lament of an elder statesman of an oil-rich country: "We need leaders, not looters..."
What responsibility should citizens bear for creating "looting leaders"? The following observation is insightful: "Things changed for us when we refused to work with our questioning minds rather we chose to be ignorant." This stunning critique aptly summarises our tendency to give leaders too much slack; our unwillingness to critically analyse and robustly question their performance and be rid of them as required. We forget theirs is a mandate to serve and not rule!
Some recoil in denial, naively contending that the "leader-looter" is an aberration, a brand not seen in T&T. If so, how do we explain endemic corruption of the magnitude and prevalence here? How can it flourish uninterruptedly for so long, without detection and prosecution? Is this evidence of the guile of underlings or rather, the patronage of facilitating, permissive leadership?
Corruption is a problem and its control a challenge for all governments. Yet leadership across the divide vacillates. The president of one country allegedly supports stiffer penalties for corruption, but considers an amnesty ban for corrupt officials too tough. Leaders in another promote anti-corruption campaigns, but decoratively for political ends. In a third, voters seem reluctant to punish the corrupt, even after massive scandals lead to numerous arrests and resignations.
In T&T, leadership-corruption is a crushing blight on overall development of the country, undermining all aspects of national endeavour including service delivery by most government institutions. But the public sector has no monopoly on malfeasance; private enterprise actively colludes in graft, and public-private partnership in this arena is gravely distressing.
We can ostrich-like bury our heads in the sand, and feign ignorance of such wrongdoing. Alternatively, we can confront those stealing our freedom, future, prosperity and rights and exert pressure for a society that works for the benefit of all.Later this year, we exercise our franchise at the polls. Much can be done between then and now, in collaboration with civil society and the media, to influence selection of candidates of character and competence.
As for impropriety in the private sector, we must call out the various Chambers, the TTMA and similar organisations, forcing them to declare their hand and adopt a more proactive stance against private-sector corruption.
Citizens must remain vigilant, never flagging in the resolve to expose corruption, wherever it exists. Nor should we be seduced by empty blandishments and catchy, creative slogans. We are reminded too that looters need leaders of similar ilk to direct the raid!
Alas, leadership with integrity remains in short supply!
Winston R Rudder
Petit Valley