The political culture allows for the ruling party to appoint boards of directors to run state enterprises from amongst its ranks, but is there some divine right of members of a ruling party/ies at all levels to have an unfettered right to the resources of the State because their party forms the Government?
Most importantly, is it in the best interest of quality governance of the state enterprises sector and inevitably the economy and society for the Cabinet to simply focus on the people who supported the ruling party in an election campaign, appointing them to state corporations and without reference to competence and the best interests of the corporations and quality and transparent government? Should it be part of the mandate of a party elected to government that it can ignore the resources, expertise, experience of the entire country and employ only people who belong to its circle of party membership? These, other questions and observations come to mind in the midst of the "hustle" by the parties in the coalition for the "spoils" of victory. ???????????
In our recent past, this notion of the ruling party being empowered by an election victory to do as it pleases with the resources of the State led to the Piarco Airport terminal "feeding frenzy," with the resulting effects still before the courts. From the PNM era, the society continues to be haunted by the unresolved and yet to be prosecuted matters involving Udecott, the Guanapo church, the Tarouba stadium and several others because the political culture has been that ruling parties can do as they please with state resources. Moreover, those periods of political administration further institutionalised the practice that the Government, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet were entitled to distribute state resources to party members, friends, relatives and co-conspirators in the manner they determined best for party and government of the day.?
Indeed, the practice has been supported by a political philosophy of "winner takes all. But is this the best option in the context of the developing need for a governance culture which places constraints on how much power is handed to a government to wield unilaterally? The question therefore becomes relevant: should there be an attempt to transform the political culture so that political party patronage is removed as the basis for determining how and by whom the economy and society are governed? Minister Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan inserted into the argument the very relevant point that board appointments must be made on the basis of the capacity of individuals to function in positions for which they are to be selected and not on the basis of party affiliation and loyalty.
Under the surface of the controversy, for the moment, is another element of the issues surrounding party-based appointments; and it is not now being honestly raised for fear of the political fallout. That issue has to do with how ethnicity has played and continues to play a significant role in state appointments and the allocation of resources.? When the PNM was in office, over its several incarnations, the appointments to state enterprises left the impression that Afro-Trinis were the only competent people in this society. To the very obvious Afro-Trini bias of his Cabinet, Prime Minister Manning once said he could not find suitable Indo-Trinidadians. What in fact he meant was that he could not find Indos from within the party's ranks who were trustworthy enough to be placed in significant positions. The Maha Sabha has consistently noted that for decades succeeding PNM governments never appointed one Hindu to the Cabinet. Similar criticisms have been made too about boards of the Central Bank, about the Caribbean Court of Justice and several other national institutions making decisions about the nation without adequate representation of the ethnic and religious diversity of the plural society.
Former government minister and UNC MP, Trevor Sudama, has examined at length what he concluded was the unequal distribution of resources by PNM gov- ernments to the disadvantage of the Indo-Trinidad population. On the appointment of the first UNC Cabinet, one commentator said he thought he was in Bangladesh when he looked at the composition. A refrain from PNM supporters during the UNC's time in office was "another black man bites the dust" to the appointment of UNC supporters to positions previously held by PNM people. The ethnic element of the contentions may not be acknowledged at this time, moreover that the Congress of the People, the major contender, is also predominantly Indo-Trinidadian. The reality though is that ethnicity is a central concern, and should be in this plural society, as to how resources are distributed by a government in office.
The point here being, if party consideration is foremost in the selection of boards, the allocation of contracts and other areas of resource distribution, then inevitably, because of the nature of the politics and the constituent make-up of the political parties, there will be a favouring of one ethnic group over the other, depending on which party is in office. This is our socio-political reality and we cannot act as if it does not exist. To subdue this monster of race, political governance must include measures and infrastructure to marginalise it; the monster will not wander away on its own.?When such a practice of staying within party limits is enshrined for board appointees and the allocation of resources, where does it end? And how has it impacted on the quality of governance over the decades?
Unfortunately, these are not issues, principles of governance and behaviours which we have deliberately sought to work out in the post-independence period: the culture of patronage has developed and the practice has been accepted without question. A major part of the problem comes from the notion and practice which have broken the society into political camps: you are UNC, PNM, COP, TOP and if you are not within the ranks of either of those parties when they are in government, then you do not count. But unlike that myth, perhaps 50 per cent of the population does not belong to any of those camps; among that 50 per cent there are solid citizens with skills and expertise who are interested only in the welfare of T&T: should they not be utilised?