by Brian Francis

IN SECTION 21 of its most recent manifesto, under the caption A Modern Civil Service, the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) proclaims: "Many of the world's nation states are engaged in serious efforts to reform their governments and inject a culture of innovation and heightened efficiency in their public services.

"A government close to society is always ready to listen to the people. Governments that are respectful of legality, honesty, transparency, accountability and efficiency are governments conscious of their mission of promoting human and social development as the basis for attaining a more just and prosperous society."

Anyone, irrespective of political persuasion, will agree with and support such a noble position held by a long-standing political institution. But in reality, will the DLP, now that it controls Government, really be guided by such splendid ideals and effect policies and programmes consistent therewith? I doubt it! Why?

On April 8, 2008, Peter Wickham hosted the Down To Brass Tacks radio programme. It was quite interesting overall, but a major issue stood out. That issue related to accountability and transparency in awarding Government contracts for projects to be undertaken.

Wickham's position was that in reality a Government
has to look out for its supporters and ensure that they get their fair share of all Government contracts. The thinking behind that position was that supporters needed to be kept happy or satisfied to continue to vote for the party in future general elections.

Clearly, Wickham has a point. But, tell me, if we accept his perspective, wouldn't that be a severe strike to the face of accountability and transparency in government? How
could a government hand-pick individuals and award them contracts to carry out
public works on the main premise that the contractors are party supporters and
still make claims to accountability and transparency? Government certainly cannot!

Follow guidelines

To ensure accountability and transparency in the awarding of contracts for the execution of public works, Government needs to put in place a team of impartial civil servants who are determined to follow certain guidelines in relation to how and when contracts ought to be granted to individuals bidding for those contracts.

Any system that allows a single individual to make final decisions in relation to awarding Government contracts is doomed
to become corrupt and will eventually fail.
If such a system or practice is introduced
in Barbados, it can only serve to ensure that supporters of the governing party get "their fair share of the cake" at the expense of other more qualified and experienced individuals who would have submitted bids for the job to be done. And the idea of involving the Auditor-General in the decision-making process vis-à-vis the awarding of Government contracts is as ridiculous as putting the final decision-making in the hands
of an individual.

Moving ahead, if the current Government is interested in the ideals to which it makes claims, it would be better served by practicing accountability and transparency in the execution of its policies and programmes. Part of that mandate has to include fulfilling promises made to the public. In that context, I still await the naming of most of the new diplomats.

I also still await full disclosure in relation to the job description and remuneration package for Hartley Henry. I still await concrete measures to bring the high and rising cost of living down.

Definitely, no Government should be allowed to deceive the public in any form possible. Deception by Government or public officials is tantamount to "a dangerous obsession". And as
an educated population, we should never allow that culture
to take root in Barbados.