“The old order changeth, yielding to new,
And God fulfills Himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”
– Alfred Lord Tennyson
I began with that, and this quotation from the first verse of the Book of Ecclesiastes:
“For everything there is a season, And a time for every purpose under heaven.”
After thirty years since independence, now is the time for a new order. For a new order to be established, there could be a top down or bottom up approach. I think we should start at the highest level and proceed downwards. The highest level is the Legislature – the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives
Have you observed the House of Representatives in session? This is where the Honorable men and women sit, chosen by the people to consider and debate proposals for action to be taken by Parliament in the service of the nation. The title of “Honorable” is conferred on them, because the nature of the mission on which they are engaged is such that they should be referred to and treated with civility and respect. Would you agree with me that the behavior of our representatives does not always measure up to our expectations?
To begin with, Government and Opposition sit on different sides of the House but, both are there to serve the national interest. They should have a common purpose. When a Bill is presented to the House by the government side and, it is opposed by the other side, it does not mean that they are adversaries. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticize and find fault. Bills are never perfect in the form that they are presented. However, when there are matters of urgent, public importance to be resolved, the nation expects both sides to work together to produce solutions. A serious social problem like crime is an example. A Bill to deal with crime should have the support of both sides, before it is presented to the House.
Members of the House of Representatives are our law makers. They are required to uphold and protect the law and, they should be the law’s exemplars. To make sure that they behave as exemplars, there should be a Code of Conduct for MP’s and an Ethics Committee to administer the rules, with appropriate sanctions. Amongst those sanctions, the Committee should have the duty to recommend the suspension of an MP for lower levels of offences and impeachment for higher level offences.
The Executive
Members of the executive branch of government should be subject to the oversight of the Ethics Committee in their personal conduct, along with the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the appointment and removal of Ministers. They are also subject to the authority of the Integrity Commission in its administration of the Corruption in Public Life Act.
Where there is smoke, there’s fire and, if one fifth of the reports of corruption in certain Ministries were to be believed, a reasonable man would conclude that we have a serious problem of governance. Certain corrupt practices have been going on for such a long time that they have become the norm. How can we expect to have probity and rectitude in a society when this is the example set by persons holding high office? If we want our country to have a New Order, we have to put a stop to corruption. It can be done.
I understand that when an investment proposal is made to a government Minister, the investor is required to contribute certain sums to parties who have access to the Minister. If the investor is “well heeled,” and is superbly confident in the success of his venture, he might pay but, there are serious investors who will be turned off. I think we lose more than the Ministers gain from this practice. It should be possible to put an end to it. The practice does great harm to the whole culture of government service because if the exemplar is dishonest, how can we expect his subordinates to be otherwise?
I suggest that all investment proposals of more than five hundred thousand dollars in value should be presented directly to the Ministry of Finance and, not through any other Ministry. Serious investors would have to employ the services of local consultancy firms to assist in their presentation.
The Public Service
Career public servants with a Permanent Secretary at the head of each Ministry is superior to our present system, where persons are brought in from outside the Public Service and put in charge of government Ministries. Persons appointed by Ministers have little knowledge and no experience in public administration, which is different from running a business. CEO’s do not have the respect of their subordinates and are not given the support that a career public administrator would command. It is suggested that there is much lower level corruption observed in a number of revenue producing departments because, there is not the systematic monitoring of the performance of technical personnel at all levels, which would be in place in establishments administered by a career Permanent Secretary.
It suited the administration which changed the system from Permanent Secretaries to Chief Executive Officers. The political directorate wanted to be assured of the personal loyalty of their chief administrators. Their purpose was achieved.
There are many good reasons I can list, why we would be better served to go back to Permanent Secretaries. I’ll mention two. Permanent Secretaries are chosen from the hierarchy of the Public Service, the cream of the crop. They have the experience of working in different posts of several government departments. They know all the general regulations and rules which govern departmental functions and systems. They have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of their superiors, those qualities of mind and personal attributes considered necessary to advancement to the positions, from which individuals are chosen to be trained as public administrators. It takes about twenty-five years of work experience and training to be a Permanent Secretary. That is my first reason.
The second reason is that CEO’s have no security of tenure. They come and go at the pleasure of their Minister. Their fortunes are joined to the party in power, which may be for a single term. They have no other allegiance. Can they be expected to take principled stands when ventures are proposed that are not in the public interest?
I can understand why a Minister would prefer the general manager of his Ministry to be a CEO, rather than a P.S. The latter is more likely to be a good restraining influence, where established limits of action are concerned. These two management systems need to be evaluated so that the proper authorities can decide which will better serve the nation. They have their strengths and their weaknesses.
The Integrity Commission
Power corrupts! The temptation to use your office for personal gain is too great for most people. That is why it is absolutely necessary to have a body like the Integrity Commission to exercise an influence over those who have the means of enriching themselves by using the power given them by the people. The Integrity Commission needs to be strengthened by giving it the power to impose sanctions for more compliance with its lawful directives. It also needs the power and capacity to investigate statements of the affairs of public officials and, the list of persons who should be required to submit returns of their personal financial affairs should include senior members of revenue producing departments.
The Office of the Ombudsman
Only countries which recognize the need of the citizen, with limited resources or influence, for someone to appeal to when he seeks justice denied him by public authorities and private employers, appoint an Ombudsman. Belize is one of these countries. The Office of the Ombudsman was established in 1999, to the benefit of a grateful public.
Our Ombudsman Act also gives the holder of that office the power to investigate corruption. The original holder of the office interpreted this to mean corruption discovered in the course of investigating a complaint or appeal. Another view expressed by prominent personages is that this is a general power to be used to investigate reports of corruption in government departments and Ministries.
The opinion of the general public is that corruption should be investigated when there is good cause, and the Ombudsman’s power to act should be unequivocal. It is proposed that the Ombudsman’s Act should be amended to reflect this power.
The present staff structure of the Ombudsman’s office will have to be expanded, if it will be required to perform this new important function.
Finally, if the Ombudsman’s office is to give maximum assistance to the citizenry, the Act should provide for the citizen to be able to walk into his office and make a direct report to a member of his staff as an alternative to presenting his cause in writing.