Land of bribers and bribees

August 13, 2001

Corruption has little to do with immorality, one political pundit surmised recently in the course of arguing corruption really is the most telling symptom of political collapse.

Our view differs slightly in the sense that we feel it all has to do with how this world came to be fashioned, the relationships between people and people and people and "things"; the paramount arrangements, so to speak, that came to emanate from the fundamental activities that engaged this environment.

Everybody who came here voluntarily came expecting "spoils" ­ in the true sense of the word ­ profits from plunder, a quick turnover and a "hustle".

Whether they were settlers favoured by the crown; religious refugees seeking salvation and land (assured in their minds the "one" was an impossibility without the significant "other"); whether they were conquistadors seeking El Dorado's pot of gold; pirates and privateers with sanction and authorisation; "letters of marque"; or whether they merely were indentured servants with a deep-seated affinity to land ­ any land ­ or whether they were the unfortunate seeking the fortune of their dreams and/or the restoration of "good name" and rank, they all came to these peripheral hinterlands to secure that which had eluded them in their previous lives and the aim was to secure it, fast.

In a nutshell, they came to develop and extend their relationship to "ownership", to establish a "stake" and, in so doing, boost and inflate their sense of self-worth.

Only the slave, who came involuntarily, had no such concern or mission. His only purpose was to free himself from bondage, from being "property", while others were busy establishing "stakes" in the form of some kind of "property".

Failure to comprehend the ramifications, particularly the psychological ramifications, of such a predicament, even now, eventually will tear these hinterlands asunder.

The mission, approach, orientation and, therefore, the value, was not to build any society. That only would come long after when both the descendants of freedom-fighters and "stake-seekers" of various hues would come to understand nothing else was possible, given the limited space left through the relationship with imperialist epi-centres, unless they themselves bonded together to become the masters of these hinterlands.

The point, however, is the very process of engagement with which we began, with which we first attempted civilisation here, was immoral and corrupt to the core. And it has continued to be so. There was never any social contract hammered out between us, by us and for us.

Government is not a mutual arrangement between equals. Government is by decree. Everything, including written constitution, is an imposition. Government is governorship under various disguises and borrowed Westminster clothes, today's "letters of marque", which provide appropriate legitimacy, validity and supposed sanctification in the eyes of the world.

The point is "office", in such a context, devoid of authentic social contract, and with an historic environment such as ours, only could be about establishing "stakes".

The people in their collective wisdom always have tried to put these wrongs, right. But, in the absence of properly instituted channels and avenues of counter checks and balances and brakes on gubernatorial power, nothing tends to happen, until open rebellion and insurrection present themselves.

In the mean, people attach themselves to the corridors of power and use this as licence to seek their "stakes", even to steal "francoment" from the public purse if needs be, just as if it were normal, learnt behaviour to put food into their mouths to satiate hunger.

Look, there are people here who abhor such dealings, whose stomachs would turn at the mere suggestion of stealing, who would insist their children return any "rulers, pencils, books", etc found in their schoolbags for which they cannot account.

Just as there are other people who would tell their children there is nothing wrong with stealing except getting caught. The latter people are the ones who will pray to their God to assist them "to thief" and, if successful, they also will have prayers to thank their God for his divine guidance. Why, then, must we be surprised to hear about a CEO of an executive board running around with the cheque books in his personal briefcase, disbursing from wherever without supportive documentation, much to the consternation of the accounting staff?

And, everywhere one turns, there is talk about rampant nepotism, the acceptance of "kickbacks" and "bribes", the disappearance of huge sums into personal accounts of state officials and, in general, the lack of transparency and accountability in the disbursement of state funds and in the managing of huge state projects.

"How could we have reached to that?" someone asked. We did not "reach" to that, we always were there. Panday is right when he suggests there always are two sides to the issue of corruption ­ someone must be willing or in a position to offer something and someone else must be prepared to accept. In other words there are "bribers" as well as "bribees", and both equally are guilty.

So, if the PNM was guilty of corruption for 30 years, who were the ones doing the offering? In those days, it was fashionable to say "all nigger have price", be it a bottle of rum, some whisky or some curry duck and a river lime. That is quite interesting!

Who were the people, local as well as foreign, getting all the then government contracts and running all the supply lines? Who were the ones bribing state officials? Who were the officials who did not have to seek a means of livelihood after demitting office?

Moreso, who were the "bonded contractors" from whom all the government agencies (eg statutory authorities like WASA, and ministries like the Ministry of Works) were compelled by law to buy supplies? And at monopoly prices!

It's the same corrupt arrangement as it existed in the colonial days when the big shot commission agents ran things and oversaw all trading transactions and movement of goods across the hinterlands.

Today, the children of those bonded contractors are back with us in the new technology fields of information and communication systems, using old money, made under suspect monopolistic arrangements, to great advantage. Whether it involves bonded contractors "by law" or blood relatives "by nepotism", the blasted process is the same. So, who we fooling? We 'ent reach nowhere, because we never went anywhere.