Our politicians do not automatically place limits on their behaviour, and the political culture is not one in which the actors and their parties are held responsible for their indiscretions, or their gross and irresponsible behaviour. Archbishop Harris and his team must know that politicians on all sides are prepared to go to great lengths to hold on to or to acquire power. Sometimes, after tremendous bouts of mud-slinging, politicians would pay lip service to public opprobrium by issuing non-apology apologies (“I’m sorry if I offended anyone”, rather than “I’m sorry”).
The past few weeks have shown that there are a number of important questions regarding the functions of the Council for Responsible Political Behaviour, which was established to monitor the electoral Code of Ethics.
The group includes Archbishop Joseph Harris and representatives of different religious and civic groups.
The big questions it faces are whether it will have the power of sanction, how it can effectively carry out its functions, and indeed, what it stands for.
Can chairman Dr Bishnu Ragoonath and his members consider and pass judgment on what may strike other members of the public as violations of the code—a code to which the leadership of the major parties agreed? Further would they consider levels of violations, as there are in the International Cricket Council code that governs the conduct of players, and under which they can be found guilty and sanctioned? Would there be higher penalties for the most severe violations? It would be interesting to see what the council makes of the “dog and cat” remarks by Opposition Leader, Dr Keith Rowley. And especially those of Minister Vernella Alleyne-Toppin, who not only made serious allegations against Dr Rowley but also indicted his father (who is unable to defend himself) for committing a serious sexual crime against Dr Rowley’s mother. And what of parliamentary privilege? Would the council be willing and able to take on MPs who make statements that violated the code in spirit but not in law?
If the Council is simply a supine body which has to implore politicians behave themselves, then the question of what is it there for becomes hard to answer. One function the Council has been given is to engage other groups to bring “moral suasion to bear on the conduct of political parties.”
Several groups and individuals have condemned Dr Rowley for what they perceive to be the disrespect of women inherent in his statement. Mrs Alleyne-Toppin has been severely criticised, and the intensity of the criticism shows no sign of dimming despite her apology.
If government ministers and members of parliament can say the kind of outrageous things that the Tobago MP did with neither her colleagues or the speaker intervening to stop her, then the wider society needs its own court to police political conduct, besides the court of public opinion that is dealing so harshly with her.
Our politicians do not automatically place limits on their behaviour, and the political culture is not one in which the actors and their parties are held responsible for their indiscretions, or their gross and irresponsible behaviour. Archbishop Harris and his team must know that politicians on all sides are prepared to go to great lengths to hold on to or to acquire power. Sometimes, after tremendous bouts of mud-slinging, politicians would pay lip service to public opprobrium by issuing non-apology apologies (“I’m sorry if I offended anyone”, rather than “I’m sorry”).
As council chairman Dr Ragoonath has noted, the voters are the ones who will ultimately exercise leverage over parties and politicians. But the Council for Responsible Political Behaviour must be seen to be effective.