Politicians must be guided by ethics
ST. LUCIA STAR
Written By: Maryanna Williams
For some party loyalists legality has become the only litmus test for determining unacceptable behaviour. If the behaviour, however unethical, does not offend any existing law, then it is acceptable. This new measure of testing has conveniently been extended to officials whose suitability for public office should depend on public confidence and trust. The widespread criticisms of Kenny Anthony over his handling of Rochamel is overwhelming and the evidence pellucid: Kenny Anthony squandered millions of dollars of taxpayers money on Rochamel. Yet for some he has done nothing wrong because there is no particular statute to deal with the reckless use of taxpayers money by public officials.
I have made the point before that public officials are called to a higher standard of behaviour than ordinary citizens because they are in positions of trust. The Prime Minister more than anyone else is expected to live up to the public’s trust. I suppose the question on many minds is, whether the former prime minister benefited financially from the Rochamel saga? My response to this remains one of uncertainty.
I have no evidence to think that Kenny Anthony gained personally. This is no reason to say that he did no wrong. He was entrusted with the finances of the country and was grossly negligent in the use of it. That is indisputable. Regarding what can legally be done must be left to meticulous lawyers. But on ethical grounds Kenny Anthony should no longer be trusted with the finances of the country. His disqualification is not based on just the Rochamel scandal but on a series of other money related scandals over which he presided as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. There is something chronic about the former finance minister’s financial recklessness and sloppiness.
The National Conservation Authority (NCA) for years failed miserably in accounting satisfactorily for public funds placed at its disposal. Any responsible minister of finance would have demanded proper accounting of taxpayers money by the NCA. As if to affirm the mismanagement taking place at the NCA, the minister of finance dutifully made available yearly, millions of dollars to the organization. It is no wonder that those placed in charge of the day to day running of the NCA felt free to engage in financial impropriety.
It is interesting and instructive to read what the Standard, a daily newspaper of New Zealand had to say about a particular politician whose action though not illegal (a lavish expense claim for accommodation) was unethical. I quote from the September 28th issue of the Standard: “There are few sights more unedifying than that of a politician countering accusations of improper behaviour by claiming that his actions are consistent with the letter of the law. The idea that someone is innocent unless and until he is demonstrably guilty quite properly carries weight in criminal proceedings but for those elected or appointed to high office the rules are different. Their tenure being the result of electoral fortune, their tenability will always depend on public confidence. And public confidence relies on something more ineffable than precise legal niceties.”
There are good reasons why laws cannot be the only measure of acceptable behaviour among politicians. Parliamentarians have a history of passing laws to curb their excesses. Moreover laws do not necessarily equate to what is right and are not meant to cover all that is unethical. Remember slavery was once legal but of course could never have been right. Politicians have a responsibility to go beyond what the law requires. The absence of legislation is no excuse to avoid what ethics demand.
Those who are found guilty of criminal acts can be subjected to the punishment of imprisonment. And what of those who commit egregious acts of negligence in the use of public funds? Well they cannot be jailed but surely deserve ridicule, scorn and embarrassment for their wrongdoing especially when they are not remorseful. Moreso they should not be given the opportunity to repeat their hurtful acts on the citizens.
As I write I am sadly reminded for the umpteenth time of the former prime minister’s dual personality. Earlier during this week the opposition leader, Kenny Anthony in belligerent mood was calling for civil disobedience over the inclusion of fingerprints on ID cards. But it was Kenny Anthony the prime minister who signed the relevant statutory instrument to make law, the inclusion of fingerprints on ID cards. Kenny Anthony’s dual personality is indicative of a person who lacks integrity. He says one thing and does the exact opposite. On the fingerprinted ID card issue some party loyalists in the spirit of consistency would conclude that the opposition leader did nothing wrong because he broke no law. For the rest of us it is yet again another example of Kenny Anthony’s duplicity.
Ethical standards transcend time, place and political whims and must remain the standards against which the behaviours of our politicians are measured. Those who wish to exonerate the former prime minister over Rochamel on the grounds that he broke no law have adopted a lower standard of behaviour. And in so doing have excused the reckless use of public funds by public officials. Something no decent self-respecting citizen should encourage.