In pursuit of good government

Good government depends a lot on the lawful relationship between the government and civil society. The government must govern within the law and whenever its discretion is required, such discretion must be clearly exercised in the public interest. In our democratic system, government’s political integrity faces increased challenges with a vigilant civil society and a strong Opposition.

Last week, I briefly listed seven rules for a good, well-performing and accountable government. Three of these seven are:

1. The government, as representative as it presumes to be, is constitutionally bound to serve, first of all, the basic needs of the population (eg water, lights, roads, etc), as well as the general welfare, needs such as education, health, public safety.

2. In order to fulfil such a mission, the government is required to collect taxes from citizens in a transparent, fair and very proportionate manner.

3. Bounded by laws, oath of office, ethics and the noble traditions of democracy, government ministers and elected politicians are supremely expected to use such taxes in a lawful, deserving and equitable manner and with transparent integrity and effectiveness so as to earn the trust and confidence of citizens.

Readers will also recall that as a means of putting these seven rules to a public-interest test, nine general questions were asked regarding government performance.

For example, “To what extent has the government shown political integrity and transparency in accounting for public expenditure?”

In the last two years particularly, several government policies and actions have been widely discussed as evidenced in editorials, letters to the editor, radio talk shows, television interviews, political platforms, etc.

Therefore, as a further means of facilitating a rational discourse, we now operationalise these general questions into 11 specific government policies and actions. Of course, you may already have an opinion on these public-interest issues, but framing them in the following concise way may help consolidate your opinions, one way or another, as to how you, as a citizen, think your government is performing.

The question asked of each policy or action is: How well do you think government handled this matter?

The answer could range from 4 to 1, that is 4. Very well, 3. Well, 2. Badly, 1. Very badly.

The 11 matters are:

1. Petrotrin closure.

2. Property tax.

3. The Paria incident and deaths.

4. The distribution of Caroni lands.

5. Clarence Rambharat’s resignation and return to government.

6. Local government performance and reform.

7. Gas price increase.

8. Public procurement and disposal of public property.

9. Marijuana use.

10. Crime.

11. Hiring British lawyers to gather evidence to help prosecute corruption charges.

The total scores for all 11 issues will range from 44 (all “very well”) to 11 (all “very badly”). A higher total score means the government did well. Ae lower total score means the government did badly.

As a modest pilot test, I gave this list of 11 questions to nine people who gave varied responses, inevitably linked to their political party preference – a result relevant to understanding how public opinion and voting patterns emerge. Take the “gas price increase,” for example. It may surprise those who expected “a riot” to know that four of the nine found the government handled this matter “well.”

But judging from the low turnout at several protest gatherings, this should not be too surprising. The protest leaders seem to have missed something.

One of the major reasons why political opinion polls sometimes produce embarrassing results is that the pollsters should first ask their samples which political party they support. Their subsequent answers about government performance on, for example, crime or the economy, will merely reflect their party's preference, not necessarily an objective assessment.

The related fact is that as the general election or even local government elections come closer, these 11 issues will be among those intensely debated in public and, not surprisingly, in more partisan than objective ways. While democracy allows such psychological diversity, democracy also stands to gain by having a core group of civil society, independent-minded enough, to help keep the ship of state on an even, sustainable keel. This is where the pursuit of good government is essentially nourished and nobly shared.