The doctrine of political unaccountability
IF THE latest scoop of news is anything to go by, North Central Clarendon Member of Parliament (MP) Pearnel Charles Sr is fuming because a man of another bloodline has signalled his desire to succeed him as the Jamaica Labour Party’s representative in that constituency, upsetting his plan for his son (Junior) to be the future standard-bearer. The saga is reminiscent of that which followed Derrick Smith’s retirement as MP for North West St Andrew, wherein his son Duane was not the party’s candidate of choice to succeed him. Apparently, these folks think that there is an indubitable entitlement for their offspring to be their successors.
Neither of these two can boast of any exemplary and indelible accomplishments in their constituencies. They are not legacy brands, just ordinary people in extraordinary positions accomplishing the ordinary, which leads me to the more fundamental issue. How do we evaluate the performance of a MP or a Cabinet minister if there are no specific performance criteria for them?
MISSING METRICS
Up to September last year, Prime Minister Holness had not delivered on promised job letters prescribing key performance indicators for his ministers. Notwithstanding Government’s undeviating insistence on performance standards for civil servants, these job letters have still not been completed, despite the recent Cabinet reshuffle. This is the doctrine of political unaccountability: why put standards and prescriptions in place to drive improvements in performance and accountability when it’s not in your best interest so to do?
Remember now people, a politician’s first priority is to get elected, their second priority is to get themselves and their party reelected. In-between these two-way points, as representatives of their constituents they are supposed to facilitate solutions to critical issues within their areas of electoral responsibility. However, these representative duties are often treated as extra-curricular activities, not to mention undertaking duties as a minister of government. So, when the extra-curricular activities are to be appraised, individuals are more likely to focus on those areas at the expense of their first and second priorities. No politician is willing to take such a gamble, which inevitably leaves the door open for ‘interpreted performance criteria’ devoid of proper accountability.
ABSOLUTE POWER
Invariably, wherever and whenever people in positions of authority, whether corporate or public sector, are able to operate without performance and accountability strictures, such situations give rise to absolute power, which, as we know, corrupts absolutely. Such corruption is not confined to illegal undertakings: warped thinking, misguided decisions, creative explanations (duppy stories), pomposity and delusions of entitlement are typical pitfalls of such absolute situations, which could explain the delusions as to the right of continuity of lineage a la Messrs Smith and Charles.
ACCOUNTABILITY
In his attempts to downplay the lack of job letters, the prime minister indicated that his ministers “each had to figure out where they were and what they needed to improve on as part of a self-assessment of their performance and give the Cabinet a projection of what they planned to do for the completion of the year”. That may be fine for the confines of a Cabinet meeting, but their primary shareholders are us, the people of Jamaica. We more so need to hear it from them.
Time’s up. Bring out di letter dem, resplendent with performance targets appurtenant to respective portfolio areas of responsibility and reporting requirements to the people of Jamaica on such matters as achievements, cost controls and value for money. The time for duppy story done: the doctrine of political unaccountability dead. Deliver or depart!
Prime Minister, let’s get the ball a-rolling.