The Tribune

THE words of Margaret Mead come to mind as we sit to pen this editorial.

Mead was a famed American cultural anthropologist – and while her name may not ring a bell, perhaps some of her words might.

It was Mead who notably said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

However, it is another quote of hers that dwells on the mind today. She said: “What people say, what people do, and what they say they do are entirely different things.”

Let us turn then to the modern PLP – and examine what is said, and what is done.

In May of this year, as the current government brought forward its budget, the Office of the Prime Minister touted that it reflected “the highest ideals of governance, transparency, and accountability”.

Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, Philip “Brave” Davis, in his first speech on taking on that role, called for an end to secrecy, and a building of trust.

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.”

He added: “We will uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and ensure that everyone is treated fairly, so that it’s not one rule for one set of people and another for another set of people.”

Noble words, but let us turn then to the advice of Fred Mitchell given to Immigration Minister Keith Bell as he finds himself mired in recent controversies – Mr Mitchell has urged Mr Bell not to respond.

Mr Mitchell, in his typical fashion of going on the attack when the PLP finds itself on the defensive, said there could be “no rational discussion by a minister on immigration in this country”. He said one side would accuse the other of being traitors and “so no minister can put a point with a logical argument within this matter”.

Mr Mitchell is muddying the waters with this argument, of course. There is no discussion on immigration taking place. There is no policy change. Mr Bell is not being shouted down by those advocating a different approach. The discussion is about procedure, whether Mr Bell has told the truth and whether he may even have broken the law.

But for Mr Mitchell, while dismissing everyone asking for answers as idiots, The Tribune included, his advice is to “keep your counsel, keep your head down, do your work”.

So much for transparency and accountability.

Which is it? Is this an administration that is committed to the ideals set out in Mr Davis’ very first speech as Prime Minister? Or is it an administration that feels it owes no answers to the public when genuine concerns are raised about procedures that at the very least are unusual, have been suggested to be improper and may be considered to be illegal?

Consider this: The Prime Minister “may well pay political hell with voters, many of whom are angry at his administration’s smugness, arrogance and betrayal of the democratic trust, to name a few political sins”.

These lines do not refer to the current administration, but rather were written about a previous PLP Prime Minister, Perry Christie, by columnist Simon, who pens the regular Front Porch column in The Tribune. He was writing in 2014 in the wake of the gambling referendum that led to a feeling he would break promises and break trust. Politically, Mr Christie paid a significant price for losing the confidence of the electorate, and was drummed out of office by voters.

In the aftermath of that election, the word arrogance was used on a number of occasions to describe the PLP, and a feeling that it had become separated from the electorate was a common observation.

Did the PLP learn its lesson from that? Or will Mr Mitchell’s advice – to ignore calls for answers from the public – lead it back along that path?

Either way, the public declarations of accountability and transparency are entirely inconsistent with a refusal to give answers on issues of public concern.

So take note of what people say, and what people do. If a government of any political colours refuses to be forthcoming on issues, do not believe that same government when it claims transparency and accountability.

No one made Mr Davis say those words in his very first speech – that was his choice. He presumably thought it was important to mark the start of his administration in such a fashion.

Now his administration has to live up to those words. Or else those words mean nothing. That too is a choice. We shall soon see which choice the government makes.