Numerous individuals have raised their voices in condemnation of what has transpired in the National Assembly during the debate on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 2021. We join these persons in their condemnation, and in so doing, we will refrain from naming names and instead focus on the underlying causes of the undesirable behaviour by some of our elected officials. Not all Members of Parliament (MPs) fall into this category, as some have indeed carried themselves in the past in a manner befitting of their status as Honourable Members of the House. The names of the late Desmond Hoyte, the late Winston Murray, David Granger, Rupert Roopnaraine, Dominic Gaskin, and Samuel Hinds readily come to mind.
Lack of direct accountability to the electorate
Prior to 1964, MPs were elected on a constituency basis, meaning that individual members were elected directly by citizens based on geographic representation, or first-past-the-post system of voting, as it is called. About one-third of the countries in the world continue to use this system, mainly English speaking countries. In such a situation, individual MPs are directly accountable to citizens that elected them to office. If they do not carry themselves in a manner consistent with their status, or they do not perform to expectation, they are likely to be replaced in the next round of elections.
For the 1964 elections onwards, the system was changed to one of proportional representation whereby the entire country was considered a single constituency. Seats were allocated based on the standing of the political parties in the elections. To form the government, a party had to secure at least 50 percent of the votes. Post-election coalition was possible in the event a contesting party did not achieve the 50 percent mark.
This electoral system remained in force until the 1980 Constitution came into force. The change removed the requirement to have at least 50 percent of the votes, and replaced it with plurality of votes, meaning that the presidential candidate from the political party winning most of the votes, forms the Government. In this way, it is possible to have a minority government. In 2001, the system was further modified to provide for membership of the Assembly on a combination of national and regional basis, the former constituting 40 members of the Assembly while the latter, 25. MPs are selected from two separate from lists of candidates, based on individual parties’ standing in the elections.
Given the above arrangements, there is no direct accountability by individual MPs to the electorate. Rather, it is the political parties from which their names were extracted that are accountable. In the circumstances, there is no incentive for MPs to conduct themselves in the manner expected of them. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that whenever there is a display of undesirable conduct, or if there is wrongdoing by a Member, the tendency has always been to circle the wagons. We have all heard the familiar words: ‘The party’s interest comes first’, meaning that if disciplinary action is taken against anyone within the ranks from the Government’s side, such action is viewed as playing into the hands of the Opposition parties, and vice versa.
In our article of 21 April 2014, we referred to former Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar dispensing with the services of 12 of her Ministers during her 4-year tenure in office for minor misdemeanors. Here is what she said in relation to one of her decisions:
There must be no compromise on integrity, no allowance for arrogance, no room for violation of mutual respect; there will be no sacrifices of our values on the altar of expediency. Regardless of the consequences, I remain resolved to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do…No one is exempt from the measure of value based leadership…
I hold no brief for any man or woman save the greater public interest… I have insisted from the moment we took office that every one of us must display a sound character of public integrity, fairness, humility, compassion and human dignity.
My leadership isn’t formed in the mould of loud and angry politicians who feel that shouting and attacking everything is the best way to be heard.
The article can be found in one of my publications entitled “Governance, Transparency and Accountability” available in Parliament Office’s library. Former President David Granger was present at the book launch on 26 May 2016, and gave the feature address. In introducing the book, I had referred to the need for Ministers of the Government, MPs and other public officials to display the highest degree of integrity, morality, ethics, transparency and accountability in discharging their responsibilities to the public; and to avoid situations that can be viewed as conflicts of interest. In order to emphasise this point, I picked up the book and passionately read out the above words from Ms. Persad-Bissessar. Mr. Granger appeared unbothered at a time when evidence was emerging of unbecoming behaviour of a few of his MPs and other public officials.
Factors to be considered in the choice of MPs
Considering that the electorate has no say in the choice of individuals to serve as MPs, one would expect that extreme care and caution would be taken to identify persons to be placed on the lists of candidates for the elections. The failure to do so, is likely to place the political parties in an embarrassing situation when MPs do not conduct themselves properly. While party loyalty is a key influencing factor in the selection, other considerations should not be overlooked. These include the level of maturity and intellectual capacity to serve in the highest forum in the land; the motivation and ability to serve the public good and the public interest and to set aside all other interests, including personal interest; professional and technical competence; and a track record of good performance.
Loyalty versus professional/technical competence
Party loyalty is not enough and must be supported by technical and professional competence to enable MPs to effectively serve the national interest. This is especially so, considering that a significant amount of the work of the Assembly is undertaken in committees that requires specific skill sets. Standing Orders 80 of the Assembly lists six standing committees, namely Committee of Selection, Public Accounts Committee, Committee on Constitutional Reform, Committee on Appointments, Parliamentary Management Committee, and Oversight Committee on the Security Sector. Additionally, Order 86 identifies four sectoral committees on natural resources, economic services, foreign relations and social services. There are also four other committees – Standing Orders Committee, Assembly Committee, Committee on Privileges and Statutory Instruments Committee. In total, there are 14 committees of the Assembly.
When one examines the list of candidates for the 2020 and earlier elections, the inescapable conclusion is that little or no consideration was given to ensuring that candidates had the desired professional/technical competence to serve on the above committees. The preferred approach should have been one in which there is a clear indication as to which committee each potential MP is likely to serve. This will force the party decision-makers to consider when the persons identified have the appropriate training and experience to serve on the identified committees.
Servant leadership
Perhaps an equally important consideration is the need for MPs to display complete integrity of character, humility (as opposed to arrogance) and other attributes consistent with the principles and practices of servant leadership.
Servant leadership is a philosophy and a set of practices that enrich the lives of individuals, build better organizations and ultimately create a more just and caring world. According to the Center for Servant Leadership, it is a timeless concept that focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong. While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the ‘top of the pyramid’, the servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first and helps people develop and perform to the best of their ability. A servant-leader helps others not only to rise to the highest level of their potential but also ordinary people to achieve the extraordinary feats.
It was Robert Greenleaf who first coined the words in an essay first published in 1970 in which he asserted that:
The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.
The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?
(For further details, readers may wish to visit the website of the Center for Servant Leadership at https://www.greenleaf.org/.)
And in an article entitled “Practicing Servant Leadership”, Larry Spears identifies ten characteristics of a servant-leader:
1. Listening: Ability to listening intensely, coupled with regular periods of reflection. While communication and decision-making skills are important, these need to be reinforced by a deep commitment to listening intently to others.
2. Empathy: Display of understanding and empathy for others.
3. Healing: Ability to heal one’s self as well as others. Servant-leaders have an opportunity to “help make whole” those with whom they come in contact. According to Greenleaf, ‘[t]here is something subtle communicated to one who is being served and led if implicit in the compact between servant-leader and led is the understanding that the search for wholeness is something they share’.
4. Awareness: General awareness, especially self-awareness, helps to understand issues involving ethics and values. According to Greenleaf:
Awareness is not a giver of solace – it is just the opposite. It is a disturber and an awakener. Able leaders are usually sharply awake and reasonably disturbed. They are not seekers after solace. They have their own inner serenity.
5. Persuasion: Ability to rely on persuasion rather than positional authority in making decisions. The servant-leader seeks to convince others rather than coerce compliance (in contrast to the traditional authoritarian model) and builds consensus within groups.
6. Conceptualization: Ability to “dream great dreams”, looking at a problem from a conceptualizing perspective and thinking beyond day-to-day realities.
7. Foresight: Understanding the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision for the future. It is also deeply rooted within the intuitive mind.
8. Stewardship: Ability to appreciate that everyone plays a role in holding their institutions in trust for the greater good of society. Servant-leadership assumes first and foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others. It also emphasizes the use of openness and persuasion rather than control.
9. Commitment to the growth of people: Recognition that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions. The servant-leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual and recognizes the tremendous responsibility to do everything possible to nurture the growth of these persons.
10. Building community: Awareness that much has been lost in recent human history as a result of the shift from local communities to large institutions as the primary shaper of human lives. The servant-leader seeks to identify some mechanisms for building community among those who work within a given institution. As Greenleaf stated:
All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers of people is for enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each servant-leader demonstrating his own unlimited liability for a quite specific community-related group.
(The article can be found at to be found at https://apscomunicacioenpublic.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/larry-spears-practicing-servant-leadership.pdf.)
