If one takes this definition to its logical conclusion, this would reasonably speak to the recognition that social and political degradation of the institutions governing Barbados will be an end result of such corrupt practices. In essence, corruption tends to flourish in conditions whereby the institutions of governance are weak and where oversight mechanisms are marginalised. Clearly this is not the situation in Barbados although one must admit that there are areas that require some modifications thus further enhancing the institutional capacity of governance. These institutions though drawing from cultural and societal norms together with best practices arising from other jurisdictions cannot and should not be rendered pliable contorts of oppositional forces bent on an uncontrollable desire to govern – that behaviour characterises a tyrannical and dictatorial air rather than being useful additions for democratic governance and the building of strong institutional capacity. The late Prime Minister of Barbados, the Honourable JMGM ‘Tom’ Adams, brought in 1975 a “Resolution requesting the Government to introduce legislation providing that all Members of Parliament, Senators, and holders of public offices be compelled to disclose their assets when taking office, or a seat in Parliament and thereafter, periodically until they cease to hold such office or seat in Parliament.” In much of the debate that followed, various views were expressed and it is critical to note that the exuberance which should have been given to this resolution ultimately becoming law was railroaded in the Upper House after the lack lustre show from the then DLP participants in both Houses. The travesty of not already legislated on integrity for politicians and those holding senior offices in the civil service is borne out today, not in any quantifiable measure but in the qualitative nature of public perception. Adams said then that “we are living in a time when all of us [Parliamentarians] are subject to a great deal of public distrust when it comes to the question of politicians and their ability to resist the temptation of self interest while in office.” The Honourable Frederick Smith while recognising the factual elements put forward, expressed a hesitancy bounded on the inadequate remuneration to politicians and the contention that integrity legislation could have a debilitating effect in relation as to those persons who under normal conditions were likely to come forward but would feel stunted to do so under the conditions of a new legal instrument of integrity and personal disclosure of assets. It is significant to also attach a comment from Smith which illustrates the folly of the current opposition in expressing certain sentiments in public fora without the necessary evidence to support such claims or the willingness to have meaningful debate in the Parliament of Barbados. Smith alludes that “if rumour could be exported we would make the best foreign earnings that we ever made because there is no country I know where rumour is so prevalent.” Hence this negatives Thompson’s use of the street corner rather than debate in the Parliament for his suggestive comments on malfeasance and corruption by a Minister or/and public officials. This ought not to stand in a society that is maturing to the extent that in its 41st year of independence, there have been many positive developments that have been able to hold up the governance of Barbados to international scrutiny with consequential statements putting Barbados as one of the least corrupt administrations worldwide.
Back To News