Corruption Perception
Whether or not the UNC government is a financially corrupt one is undoubtedly an important legal, moral, and political question, but a far more important question is, If they are financially corrupt, what do we as a people do about it?
But first of all, we have to know that they are corrupt. But how do we get to know? We've got to start off with some sense of what corruption is, and few of us, perhaps only the amoral, would dispute the definition that corruption is action contrary to law, convention, and reasonable expectation that is calculated to benefit the perpetrator and his empire exclusively. Put more simply, corruption is abuse of one's position to enrich oneself at the expense of others. In reference to a government such as the UNC, it is UNC ministers, UNC chairmen and directors of state boards, UNC CEOs and managers of state agencies and companies, etc., stealing from the state, the taxpayer, and firms and persons seeking state contracts in order to illegally, immorally, and unreasonably enrich themselves.
They steal through a variety of means. They take bribes under the table from firms and persons seeking state contracts. They set up companies under other people's names or under pseudonyms to award contracts to. They discriminatingly award contracts to friends, family, party financiers, and party members. They violate established tendering procedures. They spend state funds without keeping records. They inflate the salaries and perquisites of party appointees arbitrarily. They generally exclude from appointments to lucrative state positions as well from awards of lucrative contracts persons outside of their family or ethnic empire, though they allow some tokenism to outsiders.
But how do we know that they do these illegal, immoral, and unreasonable things? We do through the grapevine, through the reports of the auditor general, through leakage of sensitive documents, through somebody standing up and bussing the mark, and through official inquiries (when these are commissioned). We can know, of course, through a court verdict, but we don't have to wait for that kind of knowledge to be able to say that a UNC state official is corrupt. Indeed, most corruption matters do not go to court, as incriminating documents are destroyed, bribe conquerors and victims fear the consequences of revelation of their involvement, and technicalities and loopholes prevail over the facts. But we do not need that avenue to know.
Knowing is not essentially a legal process, but a social one. We know through our individual and social perceptions, not through what the courts determine is guilt or innocence, important as this may be.
So knowing is personal and social perception, and there is no doubt that many of us, including, a priori, members of the UNC empire, perceive the UNC government to be corrupt, numbingly, staggeringly so. Proving it in the courts might be extremely difficult in each case of perceived corruption, but the constraints and standards of the courts are definitely not those of the personal or social mind. We know because we perceive it to be so, and we perceive it to be so through the social grapevine, leakage of sensitive information, an auditor general's report, a commissioned inquiry, etc.
We know, but far more important is what we do with the knowledge. We have several options. Shake our heads knowingly, accept it, and move on. Organise personally and socially against it by condemning it publicly and clamouring and marching for dismissals, resignations, prosecution, tighter administrative controls, and, ultimately, premature elections. Wait for the next general elections to vote the government out.
We can condemn, clamour, and march, but will these things stop the corruption? When the next round of elections comes, will disgust and outrage over corruption stand ethnic tribalism down? And even if it does, can we be confident that we will prevent the next government, a PNM one by present indicators, from travelling the corruption path?
Do most of us even want to stop corruption? Or do we see it as a necessary component of the business of doing business, or as a legitimate way of self-aggrandisement for self-actualisation?
If we do, then it is clear that perceptions of corruption are not enough to fight against and uproot it. What is also needed is an unambiguous conscience against it. But developing and installing that conscience in the body politic in a society as culturally (and ideologically) diverse as ours would be a very fretful and draining task indeed.
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
