While it’s only been ten weeks since the Cabinet has been in place the President and the Prime Minister will undoubtedly be keenly analysing the performances of individual ministers and determining when changes should be made.
Twenty-three years of PPP/C governance provided no examples on how ministers should be held accountable for performance or how a rejigging of the Cabinet could reinvigorate governance and heighten accomplishments. PPP/C governments since 1992 must have a regional record for the lowest turnover of ministers and not for the want of cause. There were several cases particularly under President Jagdeo where ministers should have immediately resigned for serious infractions or have been fired the second after. There were also incidents under President Ramotar and public pressure was the key factor in his belated decision to fire the Health Minister Dr Ramsaran. The policy of the PPP, derived from its obsession with control and the paranoia so characteristic of Marxist parties was to ensure that there was no public embarrassment over ministerial misbehaviour which could possibly weaken party. It preferred to cover the transgressions of its ministers with subterfuge and outright fabrications without realising that even greater damage was being done to it by the erosion of public confidence. With the PPP/C there was tenure in office for the party faithful and those who were prepared to be `yes’ people. That is not the way to run a government.
The charging of two former PPP/C ministers in recent days has clearly shocked the PPP’s system leaving its former Attorney General Mr Nandlall to muse in his Mirror column as to who might be next. The answer to that, of course, is wherever evidence is presented to warrant such charges the system must function. Had the PPP/C ensured that its ministers were held fully accountable for performance and to a code of ethics there may not have been swooning over what might now transpire following the change of government.
As far as Caricom goes, the exemplar in terms of holding ministers accountable must be the government of the Trinidadian Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Up to February this year there had been four major reshuffles of the Cabinet in less than five years and 15 ministers have been fired. The firings have been attributed to misconduct in public office and poor performance. The PM has patently made some poor selections during the years but where hard decisions had to be taken on even close allies she was prepared to make them as in the case earlier this year with her former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan. The message that she has been able to get across effectively is that that there would be little tolerance for misbehaviour be it abuse of office or corruption. She has also underlined that poor performance is a ticket for the exit and utilized reshuffles to energise her government in a bid to make it more effective.
It is a message that President Granger and PM Nagamootoo should study intently. While there is goodwill for this government in the aftermath of the May 11th general elections it can be easily and quickly eroded if it appears to the public that there are consistent non-performers in the government and bad behaviour by ministers is being covered up and ignored. The government should have already published a code of conduct to alert the public to the standards being required of ministers of government and other senior officials. With the ubiquity of the camera phone members of the public would then have the chance to become citizen activists by being ready to video or record any minister of the government engaged in unacceptable behaviour.
More importantly, cabinet reshuffles should be seen as periodic tools for greater effectiveness and efficiency in governance. The manner in which some of the portfolios of the Granger administration have been drawn will require major reshaping in some areas and tweaking in others. The absence of a labour portfolio has raised anxieties among the stakeholders of this traditionally significant sector whereas the portfolio of social cohesion still has many scratching their heads. There are questions about other portfolios and the expectation will be that the coalition partners would meet and review these and make changes where necessary. The Cabinet is itself unwieldy and may have to be pruned for greater effectiveness.
Already there are concerns that selections for ministers, commissions and boards have been bedecked with personages of a bygone era who may be broadly disconnected from the challenges they face in modern governance. These positions should be kept under close and constant review.
The Cabinet serves as the dynamo driving government performance. If it is held back by poor performers or the poorly behaved it can have a ripple effect throughout government. The APNU+AFC administration must do its utmost to prevent any attenuating of cabinet credibility by being unforgiving of transgressions and holding all ministers and senior members of the government strictly accountable.
In addition to the swift publication of the code of conduct, the administration should set out a mechanism for handling complaints by members of the public against ministers and other senior officials.
