Dear Editor,
Many supporters of the governing coalition have been calling on the government to move more quickly against alleged instances of corruption in the previous government. Some are also dismayed that many operatives of the PPP still hold top positions in the government. This is understandable. The instances of corruption, which have thus far been made public by the government have confirmed in the minds of many that there is more in the mortar.
The logic of party politics invariably takes us to this place. The coalition made rooting out and prosecuting corruption a centrepiece of its campaign platform. Many of their supporters have individually and collectively felt the wrath of the PPP when in government. When one combines the two, the government has to appear to be aggressively going after those suspected of corruption.
But one has to make a distinction between proper investigation of corruption and witch-hunting. The government has to make sure that it is doing a proper investigation before prosecuting people. I know people are impatient, but even instances of corruption that are obvious need to be carefully documented before prosecution. Accumulating the evidence needed to prosecute those suspected of misappropriation of government assets takes time.
We have to allow the auditors to do their work thoroughly. The Asset-Recovery Unit also has to make sure that it is engaged in investigation and not witch-hunting. Government is a very complex set of institutions. Because there are several layers of and avenues running through the government, it takes some time to catch and follow the trail of corruption.
Many persons have asked me to evaluate the government. A few have pointed to the fact that many items in the 100-day plan have not been implemented. Frankly, I think the government is doing a good job overall. It is not easy coming into government after 23 years. The government has to confront a shattered economy, the Venezuela threat and a rampant and unrepentant opposition. That’s a fair bit to handle.
The new government invariably encountered more problems than it anticipated. Some may say they should have known this. But although they are related, there is some difference between campaigning to get into government and actually governing. The government, for example, has to deal with the partisan bureaucracy installed by the previous government. The operatives may be political appointees but they know the system. If you throw all of them out immediately without proper replacements you may end up undermining your own administration.
In a sense these first few months are really a period of familiarisation and learning. The vast majority of the ministers are new to government. Some of them are new to politics. I suppose one can criticise the leadership for not choosing a more experienced team. But given what they have and given the fact that it is a coalition they have done a good job at advancing the process. They have not met some of the 100 day deadlines but what is important is that they have shown intent.
These 100 day deadlines are really election gimmicks. To do the things that they promised to do in 100 days assumes a combination of the following factors: that there was normalcy in the system they were taking over, that the outgoing government would cooperate and that there was the necessary expertise at their disposal. This is not the case. But we now have a budget. That in itself is an achievement of sorts because a proper budget assumes a thorough grasp of the macro economic situation. I think with the passage of the budget we would see faster progress.
The one criticism I have of the government is the relatively low level of consultation with stakeholders outside of formal government.
This I know slows down the process, but it is a vital aspect of democratic and good governance. You simply cannot arrive at some crucial decisions based on the views of just 15 people, however competent or well-meaning they are. The naming of the members to government boards was a victim of this lack of consultation. So too was the swift ending of the Walter Rodney Commission.
I also believe that ministers, with a few exceptions, have not been accessible to the public. I am talking here about outreaches to the communities.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
