Political Interference in State Corporations

by Andrew Allen

What began four years ago as a troubling sign of political interference with the corporations has now escalated into a pattern of confrontation between members of this government and those charged with managing public institutions.

We can all, perhaps, be thankful to Sidney Stubbs for having given us all an early warning of what to expect.

Back in 2002, as part of an exuberant generation of new PLP MPs, Mr Stubbs began throwing around pretensions of power literally within weeks of his appointment as chairman of BAIC.

In a now well-publicised letter, he used shockingly abusive and threatening language against the general manager when their swords crossed over his (the chairman's) summary dismissal of staff members.

Despite the principled, anti-victimisation position taken by Leslie Miller, the minister in that instance (who was barely on speaking terms with his chairman during the whole affair) Mr Stubbs' behaviour at BAIC cast a long shadow over the early days of Mr Christie's government.

It was a chilling reminder to many Bahamians of the kind of shady political interference with corporations that was embarrassingly revealed to the world during the last commission of Inquiry.

Unfortunately, it would not be the last public row between the head of a public organ and the politician in charge.

Less than a year ago, a particularly embarrassing row erupted between the Registrar General and the Minister with responsibility for Financial Services and Investments.

For weeks, the running of this most important department was left virtually on hold as the Registrar, claiming unfair (and ultra vires) dismissal, refused to demit office.

Ultimately, the Registrar did demit office following government's agreement to accommodate her elsewhere. However, she maintains that she was victimised to this day.

Additionally, her central allegation (that she was hounded from office for failing to carry out an illegitimate request) has never been satisfactorily countered or explained by either the minister or the government as a whole.

More recently, the ongoing spat between the president and CEO of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) and the Minister for Utilities, Bradley Roberts, has cast an aura of uncertainty over a corporation which the government still claims to want to privatise.

Again, the issue appears to be over a staffing decision. This time it is the CEO and president, who was asked by the Minister to reverse his suspension of a manager of the company. When this 'request' was denied by the president, he was then summarily fired by the minister.

AND NOW THE WATER AND SEWERAGE CORPORATION...

The circumstances of the latest row are typical. The general manager of the Water and Sewerage Corporation last Friday went on record to accuse the corporation's chairman (a political appointee) of inappropriate interference in the workings of the corporation. He has suggested that the chairman's apparently vigorous brief within the corporation is unsupported by any relevant expertise.

The chairman, meanwhile, suggests that he is acting in full accordance with the wishes of the minister, Bradley Roberts, upon whom he calls for resolution of the matter.

The matter is further complicated by the support that the chairman seems to be receiving from some members of the board and from the union, whose president blames the actions of the general manager for the row.

Whatever the truth of the allegations made so far, a few points are worth noting:

Firstly, one of the main points of contention seems to be the chairman's attempted dismissal of individuals within the corporation in circumstances which the general manager says amount to 'victimisation'. This charge should never be taken lightly, given the governing party's well established record of victimisation during its last tenure in office. It also resonates with allegations made in all of the other politician/management rows that have taken place during this government's tenure.

Secondly, the chairman is accused of acting outside his powers in increasing the wages of some 100 employees, taking the wage bill of the corporation above sustainable levels. This allegation (which may, if true, explain the union's siding with the chairman) simply has to be taken seriously since it comes from a GM, Abraham Butler, whose success at containing the costs and increasing the profitability of the corporation has been beyond contradiction.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

Given the frequency of these public rows under the present government, Bahamians are entitled to ask what will be the long term effect of this government on the viability of our public institutions. This is an important question because of the overwhelming importance of the integrity of public institutions to the orderly governance of a developing society.

While the creation and development of solid, well run public institutions is far bigger than any individual government, it does not take a few bad politicians very long to do them irreparable harm.

For confirmation of this we need look no further than Jamaica, where a previous column pointed out the virtual destruction of the institutional integrity of a once-admired Jamaica Constabulary.

As in the case of Jamaica, we inherited most of these institutions at independence and, owing largely to the general quality of our politicians, have developed virtually no significant indigenous ones.

It would be sad indeed if we permitted the bad instincts of politicians to contrive against the good corporate governance of those which we have.

Unfortunately, at their best, all these incidents point to a breakdown in communication (or perhaps trust) between politicians and the public service under the current administration. This, by its nature, must further compromise the effectiveness of an already slow and weak public service.

At worst, they indicate a growing pattern of ministerial assault upon the integrity of public institutions. The consequences of this hardly bear contemplating.