Unnecessary ethics showdown

On Thursday, the Prime Minister blasted the Council for Responsible Political Behaviour after the monitoring body called attention to two remarks he made at an address during a PNM rally in San Fernando on July 15.

The council considered a statement that gunmen had been sent to shoot up Port of Spain as unsubstantiated and questioned flyers urging sign-ups for grants which might be seen as political inducement.

Instead of a response that articulated his party’s position on both matters, Dr Rowley chose to mount a straw man argument, declaring the council to be without ethics and steeped in bias, further suggesting that the council’s observations should be ignored.

It was a startling position for the political leader of a sitting government to take in response to the concerns of a civil society organisation created for the specific purpose of improving the tone and intent of politicians engaged in campaigning for public office.

The council established the code in 2014 with four key ambitions: to foster democracy, to promote respect for human rights, to encourage participation in the electoral process and to promote an election process that is free from violence.

The council's ethics committee represents a cross-section of civil society organisations, including religious groups, professional organisations, the Network of NGOs and the Transparency Institute.

The council specifically monitors political utterances and practices in the lead up to the due date for national elections and for six months afterward.

To monitor, the council depends on reports of infractions to do its work and it's possible that the Prime Minister's reaction was triggered more by the source of the complaints – Gary Griffith's National Transformation Alliance.

The council has already admitted that monitoring social media threads – where some of the most colourfully offensive political commentary is shared – currently exceeds its resources.

There are no punitive consequences following the council's findings and its power lies entirely in moral suasion, which in turn demands that the wider society acknowledge the breaches as offensive and urge political leaders to police their party's actions and political statements.

In bluntly dismissing the concerns and ambitions of the council, Dr Rowley has set a troubling precedent. Suggesting that the censure of the council is motivated by politics instead of a commitment to improving campaign discourse needlessly drags a pointedly apolitical organisation into the brawl of the podium.

The Opposition's effort to turn the PM's comments into political capital dips into the same fetid pot.

Former prime minister Basdeo Panday once infamously commented that politics has a morality of its own.

The ethics committee was formed to intervene in that distressing status quo. Chairman Bishnu Ragoonath admitted on Friday that the council is a toothless bulldog, but remains committed to barking warnings. The public should listen.