The news that Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley was forced to change his private number does raise a critical question regarding the privacy of the country’s most powerful public official.
In his very first speech on assuming office, Dr Rowley declared that he was the Prime Minister of all Trinidad and Tobago.
Accepting that new role required him to make a critical adjustment in his relationship with people and his decision not to change his phone number was an important signal. While public frustration over problems on the sea-bridge is understandable, tying up the Prime Minister’s phone with complaints and, worse, abuse is hardly a productive use of his time. Indeed, the strategy of flooding his phone in this manner is counter-intuitive in that it gets in the way of serious work.
In T&T, access to the Prime Minister is not the challenge it is in many other countries. Dr Rowley maintains a social media presence, and his style is far from that of the reclusive leader. He also maintains a constituency office where issues can be brought to his attention on a weekly basis. He is also known to respond readily to messages sent to his phone by the media and other private individuals. That ease of communication has now been shattered by the organised assault on his phone which has achieved little more than the disruption of Dr Rowley’s interaction with many individuals and interests.
If this was the objective, then it has succeeded. However, if the aim is to communicate the public’s frustration in the hope of lobbying for a resolution, the plan has back-fired. The bombarding of the Prime Minister’s phone with abusive calls created a nuisance that he has now resolved by getting a new number which, one can assume, will be shared with far greater circumspect. Far fewer people will now enjoy the direct access that they once had with Dr Rowley, including those who have been so willing to share his phone number as a form of protest.
Public officials walk a fine line when it comes to the issue of personal privacy and the public responsibilities of being office-holders. Even as taxpayers who fund their authorised expenses, it is a line that the public must respect if this society is to avoid a descent into absolute chaos. While, for example, it is true that the Prime Minister’s official residence is public property being taxpayer funded, no member of the public can claim the right to move in and take up residence.
Let us be serious about communicating with the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet and give them due respect and privacy.
If you have a relationship with any of them and are accustomed to a regular exchange, then respect it as the privilege of a citizen in a democratic country which should be protected from abuse.