Articles - Ethical Standards or Political Expediency Written By: Urban Dolor

During the week of 8th August 2010, the Labour Party called for the resignation of Guy Mayers, Minister of National Security.  That is not unusual because the UWP’s tenure has been beleaguered by incessant calls for government ministers to resign (Ausbert d’ Auvergne, Nicholas Frederick, Richard Frederick, Keith Mondesir, Guy Mayers and Allen Chastanet).  In this article, I make the case that the Stephenson King administration does not utilize any recognizable moral or ethical principle when it responds to entreaties to remove members from the Cabinet of Ministers.

I will make that case by examining some ministerial resignations that occurred during this year in countries that have adopted some form of parliamentary democracy.  Specifically, I will compare the reasons the ministers in these countries resigned with the reasons the ministers in the King administration were (and are being) asked to resign.  That comparison will reveal that the atrocities committed by the ministers in the current UWP government are more egregious than those committed by the ministers from other countries who resigned.

In February, Phil Heartley offered his resignation to John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister.  He did not resign because of comprehensive investigations into his accounts.  Instead, he resigned because he incorrectly declared that he had spent seventy dollars ($70) for a meal but the money was used to pay for a bottle of wine.  Granted that was not the first time Heartley was caught in “slackness”—earlier, he had been caught using his ministerial credit card to pay for a family trip and other personal transactions.  As is usual in such cases of impropriety, Heartley offered to repay the money that he had “misspent.”  Nonetheless, he resigned.
Let us compare Heartley’s situation with what obtains in Saint Lucia by considering what has come to be known as the Tuxedo Villas Affair.

There is common agreement that Justice Cottle concluded that Keith Mondesir had, on the basis of a false declaration (that Bonne Terre is part of Rodney Bay), failed to pay forty thousand dollars ($40, 000) to which the State was legally entitled.  Consistent with the admission of doing wrong, Mondesir promptly negotiated with The Customs and Excise Department to pay the duties so that he could avoid additional penalties.  It is clear that, Mondesir, like Heartley, inappropriately enjoyed financial benefits at the State’s expense—yet Mondesir has not offered to resign, nor has the Prime Minister asked for his resignation.  I cannot call to mind any any ethical or moral standards which would allow a minister to remain in Cabinet after such impropriety—I doubt anybody can.

With respect to the Tuxedo Villas Affair, some will suggest that not all persons objurgated by the judges from the OECS Court of Appeal stood to gain financially and should not be required to resign their Cabinet position.  With respect to that perspective, David Law’s May 29th resignation as British Chief Treasury Secretary is instructive.

Ostensibly, Law wanted to keep his sexuality private, as a result he failed to adhere to the new rules, introduced in 2006, governing how parliamentarians claimed for rent.  The British press and other observers are unanimous that Law did not benefit financially from his actions.  Yet, the general consensus was that Law had breached the rules and that he should resign.

With respect to the Tuxedo Villas Affair, the appeals court of the Organization of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal concluded that Allen Chastanet was not a credible witness.  Essentially, three persons who are expert at judging personal character concluded that Chastanet’s image as a credible and reliable witness was tarnished —yet the Political Leader of the UWP dares to believe that Chastanet can be a good representative of the people!

It should matter little that he did not benefit financially from his actions.  Like David Law, Chastanet did the wrong thing—what ethical or moral standard would justify him remaining in the Cabinet of Ministers after being so clearly implicated in wrong doing by a panel of esteemed judges?

In July, Aldo Brancher resigned from the Silvio Berlusconi government [Italy].  I maintain that this resignation demonstrates the ethical standards that should imbrue representational politics.  Brancher was forced to resign because investigators wanted to know how his wife’s account was mysteriously enriched by three hundred thousand Euros (approximately 1,000,000 XCD).   That investigation was initiated before
Brancher was appointed a Minister hence the opposition forces called for his resignation when he
claimed ministerial immunity soon after he was installed.  It s not surprising then that popular opinion claims that Prime Minister Berlusconi intended, by giving Brancher that ministerial position, to save him from the investigation. (It is claimed that previously Berlusconi had saved Brancher’s hide by decriminalizing false accounting.)

In Saint Lucia, things have evolved differently.  It is Richard Frederick who has filed charges against the government and who now awaits a final judgment.  Readers will recall that this matter started with an investigation into allegations that Richard declared an incorrect value for vehicles that he intended to import into Saint Lucia.  Readers will recall as well that the previous Comptroller of Customs arrested Richard on that matter and that the former Attorney General (Nicholas Frederick) was accused of compromising the government’s case against Richard.  In that regard, one must conclude that Prime Minister King appears to have been much more successful in saving his man than was Prime Minister Berlusconi.

On 2nd June, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama announced that he would resign his position because he reneged on a campaign promise to remove the American base from Okinawa.  Considering the UWP’s failed promise to decrease the severity of crime in this country isn’t it time for Guy Mayers to resign?

Of the six ministers’ who have been asked to resign two are no longer in government.  Is it coincidence that the others are expected to contest the upcoming general elections as UWP candidates?  Or is it evidence that there is strategy in the unethical?