Integrity Legislation
Barbadians under this current administration have witnessed firsthand what it means to campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Regrettably, they have also been onlookers in instances where government has move beyond prose and into the realm of political gimmicks. If Barbadians were to cast their minds back to the last election cycle, they would recall that the government at the time passed integrity legislation in the form of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Given the passage of such legislation, Barbadians would expect that their public officials are now governed by a law that at its roots, sets the rules and principles of honest intentions as the basis of public office.
Unfortunately, those expectations would be misplaced. Although the bill has passed both houses of parliament, it has yet to be declared law as it remains unsigned by the Governor General. Such a situation must be mystifying for political observers as some may recall when the Prime Minister endorsed the Prevention of Corruption Act, as it would ensure the values to which this country subscribes would be “protected from erosion” and that “those values are worth fighting for”. With such an endorsement, it begs the question why the legislation has not been taken to the Governor General to be signed into law.
Could it be that these values are far more dispensable than Prime Minister’s once suggested, or is it that Barbadians have witnessed a political gimmick. In fairness to the government, it may have been that foremost on their minds were commitments to international agreements such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, rather than genuinely pursuing principles of good governance which Barbadians deserve.
Barbados is renowned for having the finest governed institutions among its Caribbean counter-parts. Yet many within the region, including Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda; among others, have taken the progressive step in making integrity legislation the law of the land. Although many similarities between Barbados’ legislation and other territories exist, our reputation for good governance would have been strengthen had our legislation been signed into law.
Unlike others, our legislation regulates political parties as “the secretary of a political party which contests a general election shall on the behalf of the party, file a declaration stating the names and addresses of every financial contributor to the party, two years prior to, and six months after the general election”. The legislation also regulates the conduct of the private sector as it seeks to ensure that private sector entities comply with existing laws that prohibit inappropriate conduct to gain advantages in respect to their commercial activities. Although legislation throughout the region may arguably be less stringent than Barbados’, they have had some successes. Beyond the now infamous case of Basdeo Panday, is prime minister Holeness of Jamaica, who bowed to pressure to declare his assets after failing to do so, highlighting the legislations’ ability to prosecute and ensure compliance.
Despite successes elsewhere, our legislation remains useless in its present state; stored and unsigned. It begs the question why legislation that had passed since 2012, is still unsigned by the Governor General. The answer may rest with conditions within the legislation. During the legislative debate, there were dissenting opinions of a bi-partisan nature, an unusual feat in the halls of parliament. Such a feat was presumably due to a gentleman’s agreements on both sides of the isle, that some provisions within the Act could result in mutually assured destruction. Some of the more unfavourable provisions were the yearly declaration of assets; spouses included, income and liabilities, along with gifts given valued over 500 dollars. Concerns over these provisions were raised by the then Minister of Health who declared that he did not feel elected members of parliament should “declare our assets to the world”.
Given the range of the legislation, this gentleman’s agreement likely extended beyond parliamentarians. Within the legislation, persons in public life refers not only parliamentarians but also heads of government departments, judges and magistrates, permanent secretaries and even the President of registered trade unions.
Although some may argue that such a reach could deter persons from seeking to serve in a public capacity, it may be necessary as public offices shroud in secrecy is harmful to the public good.