Many agencies of the government are battling an evil which has bedeviled the country for many years. In most instances it is fostered by the political connections between those who control these agencies, political cronies and lobbyists who seek to “feather their nests” and protect their turfs. The insidious phenomenon involves kickbacks estimated in the millions of dollars annually.
This sad state of affairs did not begin in recent times, but it continues today as an acceptable way for certain officials in positions in the public sector to conduct the business of government. A Bahamian professional who offered his services to one government agency recently complained this week that in competing for a contract to perform certain services, he submitted a bid of $20,000.00 monthly. He was told by a senior officer of the agency that the fee was too low as the entity is accustomed to paying $50,000.00 monthly. The officer added that since there were a number of people who were “looking for something” in the arrangement, the higher bid succeeded.
The embittered contractor insisted that his bid was well reasoned in order for the arrangement to be mutually beneficial. This type of corruption is endemic in the Bahamas, as it is throughout the Caribbean where the quality of governance is low and political patronage high. It undermines initiative, distorts the economy and it vitiates and weakens the moral fibre of the nation.
While this disease on the body politic festered throughout the last several decades in the Bahamas, the Ingraham government and now the Christie government have been unable to get to the root of the problem. Political connections are not much different from any other kind, although they often have more dire consequences for our democracy. Their economic value can be measured fairly precisely in the earnings of certain people once their party of choice is elected.
Political corruption in the modern Bahamas rarely takes the form of outright bribes. It is more subtle. Money does corrupt politics, and politicians simply receive gifts or donations for constituency projects.
Here is how it works: An individual is invited to submit a bid for a certain amount of work. He is told by the politician not to worry, the bid will succeed over any other.
The contractor is awarded the contract for a large sum. Sometime later, the contractor would receive a telephone call asking for a donation for a certain cause in a constituency. Knowing that he should in some way express thanks and gratitude for winning the bid, the contractor feels obligated to be generous.
What this does for the contractor is incalculable. Suddenly he has become someone with access to a powerful ear – become a person, it is presumed, with connections, a person of influence who has not only corrupted the official, but corrupted himself in the process. However, such a reputation is valuable to him financially, because he has a friend with whom he can do business. In addition, he has an open door and from now on his proposals are most likely to be favorably considered.
As far as the politician is concerned, he has not accepted a bribe, but has participated in “a hand go-hand come” arrangement. In the meantime, the politician has earned a friend who has access to money and would be in a position to contribute to his private projects, especially if he is able to facilitate on-going contracts.
In this relationship, they all believe that no one is hurt, the public loses nothing, in fact a constituency project is helped financially and some votes are possibly gained in the process for the next elections. The seduction has been mutual. The access that the politician provides the contractor and the access that the politician thereby gains to the money of the service provider reinforce each other.
This type relationship is also developed between senior officials of government and private contractors with none of them believing that they are doing a disservice to the public. They find this particular culture of corruption comfortable.
At regular intervals when charges of corruption arise, no one has a pang of guilt as they consider the transactions as simply economic favours among friends.
However, these connections put people inside a web of corruption and the public at a distinct disadvantage.
Editorial, Wendall Jones, The Bahama Journal
