Last Friday, in discussing the embarrassment arising from the arrest of the former Antigua and Barbuda ambassador to the United Nations, Dr John Ashe, and the damage done to the image of CARICOM by allegations of corruption, we suggested that influence peddling was a bit of a grey area in our part of the world. But in expressing alarm at the way our region is perceived and the self-harm done by our own people, we were guilty of ignoring the fact that corruption and influence peddling are not confined to the Caribbean or to developing countries in general.
Human nature being what it is, corrupt practices and misconduct in public office also taint the developed world, the West predominantly, which is given to preaching the virtues of good governance and fighting corruption. It may just be that, in these countries, with the rule of law paramount and with the existence of comprehensive legal frameworks, transparent rules-based systems, institutional checks and balances, investigative journalism and an activist civil society, corruption is more difficult to get away with. But occur it does, although it may be to a lesser degree or may actually be institutionalised or more sophisticated.
As with legal income tax avoidance, there are loopholes, if not flawed systems. It usually boils down to how the rules of the game are enforced and exploited. In this respect, the following story coming out of the United Kingdom is instructive.
Last month, former Members of Parliament (until this year’s general election), Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative) and Jack Straw (Labour), both also former Foreign Secretaries, were cleared by the House of Commons Committee on Standards of questionable conduct in a “cash-for-access” scandal. Apparently, the Telegraph newspaper and the Channel 4 Dispatches television programme had used undercover reporters, posing as representatives of a fictitious Chinese company, to get them to offer to use their privileged positions to lobby on behalf of the company in return for payments of at least £5,000 per day. In exonerating their former colleagues, the Standards Committee, itself composed of sitting parliamentarians, also turned its wrath on the media for initiating such a sting – an obvious case of going after the messenger and ignoring the message.
As explained by the watchdog Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Hudson, however, “there was no breach of the rules on paid lobbying”, as the two gentlemen had given assurances that they were not intending to back up their offer with actions. In other words, the case was purely hypothetical, as they had not done any actual lobbying in exchange for payment. Ms Hudson did warn though that the rules could be seen to be out of kilter with public expectations and that they left the way open for further allegations and the risk of “inference that Members are serving their own personal interests rather than those of the public”.
The public reaction was, predictably, one of general outrage, captured in an editorial in the Telegraph, which thundered: “Who do MPs work for? The question is fundamental to our democracy. Members of Parliament are lent power that they exercise on behalf of the people. Those people must be confident that MPs exercise that power on their behalf, not for personal gain.” There was, moreover, discomfiture that MPs were being allowed to police themselves, thereby leaving the way clear for mutual back-rubbing. The Telegraph duly concluded that: the rules on standards are not fit for purpose; on questions of lobbying and propriety, “MPs are marking their own homework” and “cannot be trusted to regulate themselves over lobbying”; an independent authority, such as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority established to regulate parliamentarians’ pay and expenses in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal, was necessary to monitor MPs’ commercial interests; and the Standards Committee’s “veiled threats” to journalists “not to carry out such investigations in future” are “chilling” and undemocratic.
As odious as they may be to some, comparisons between this matter in the UK and controversies here can be drawn. The British Parliament is hundreds of years old and it is still far from perfect. Our nation is not yet 50 years old but youth should be no excuse for not learning from the experiences and mistakes of others to get things right. And even if influence peddling can be a bit of a grey area, corruption, misconduct in public office and, indeed, arrogance in governance, are not. Our elected representatives in the National Assembly and government would do well to exert themselves to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are serving the interests of the public and the nation as a whole rather than their own personal interests.
