The Tribune

WE have written before in this column about the disparency between the current administration’s words when it comes to transparency, and its actions.

In July, we quoted the words of American cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead, “What people say, what people do, and what they say they do are entirely different things.”

At the time, we were writing about the swirl of stories surrounding Keith Bell’s tenure at Immigration.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell had interjected himself into the discussion, urging Mr Bell not to respond to questions about the various controversies at Immigration.

Mr Bell has been duly quiet since – and has been ousted from the post in a reshuffle that lands him still in a ministerial spot, this time at Housing and Urban Renewal.

We also noted at the time the commitment of Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis to the ideals of accountability and transparency.

In his first speech as Prime Minister, he said: “I also commit to lifting the veil of secrecy on that which has gone before us, so that all of the arrangements under which we have to live are transparent, and those who authored them are accountable.”

The veil of secrecy seems to be coming back down.

The Office of the Prime Minister has decided to merge the Cabinet briefing and the OPM briefing – ostensibly to create “a single, more comprehensive weekly briefing event to promote efficiency”.

Efficiency is an interesting word. Efficiency for who? For the administration? Or for the people of the nation?

Halving the number of briefings halves the number of opportunities to question members of the administration about issues of importance to the country.

It should be noted that some members of the administration seem quite reluctant to answer questions in the first place.

Mr Bell, for starters, still has many questions to answer about his tenure at his now former ministry.

One of the developments in Immigration has been the suggestion that the acting Immigration Director, Keturah Ferguson, will be put on leave.

This comes after leaks showed that senior immigration officials expressed concerns about political interference in their work.

Is the director paying the price for speaking up over such concerns? The word victimisation has already been used in the discussion over the move – and yet the move itself has not yet been confirmed.

Mr Davis had the opportunity to speak to the matter last night – and did not.

A press conference had been held with the visiting President of Botswana, in which reporters were encouraged to keep questions about local issues until afterwards, when they spoke to Mr Davis on the sidelines.

Mr Davis was asked one question about the possible strike at BPL, which he answered merely by referring to the relevant minister instead. Then, when asked about the possible move at Immigration, he then walked away. Is it a secret? Mr Davis can lift that particular veil any time he chooses.

Then there are other matters for which there have been no answers.

How much was the settlement for the fuel spill at Exuma?

Who exactly failed to follow the law in filing their legally required disclosures?

What are the contracts that have been awarded since the government came into office?

How many school contracts were given out orally rather than in written form, and how many of those contractors did not have the proper insurance?

We could go on – but the direction seems clear, and is in the opposite path from transparency.

The government may feel it can communicate effectively in another manner rather than holding multiple briefings – but it looks like it is closing off the chance for the media to ask such questions.

To the voting public, that does not look like an administration going out of its way to tell people what is going on and to answer concerns when they are addressed.

There is a chance for the government to correct such a course. It can decide to be more forthcoming. It can answer some of those outstanding questions.

But make no mistake. What the government does in terms of transparency is a choice. If the government chooses to be more transparent, that is to be welcomed. If it chooses otherwise, how will that be received by the people of the country?

We wrote before that such a stance was one of the downfalls of the Perry Christie administration, who lost the confidence of voters and was voted out as a result.

Mr Davis’ first words were of transparency and accountability. If he fails to live up to those, he risks losing that same confidence.

It’s time for the government to make its choice.