THE PRIME MINISTER'S plan to abolish service commissions is likely to trigger two kinds of knee-jerk reactions, each equally unpalatable.
The first is enthusiasm.
The need for reform has never been a secret. Every government comes to power pledging to address, one way or another, the deficiencies of these commissions. Every government has left office with them largely intact.
The fact that there has been no major headway is itself a compelling reason why abolition might seem the best option.
The other kind of reaction is strong opposition.
Service commissions were meant to insulate citizens against political influence, patronage and discrimination. To seek to remove such protections is, from a certain vantage point, an assault.
The truth is, what is needed in relation to this issue is not extreme positioning but rather a middle-of-the-road approach.
There is a need for the systems to be changed, and that is not something only politicians will tell you.
Two years ago, Justice Frank Seepersad openly expressed dismay over how the commissions are working.
'The antiquated post-independence supervisory structure which defines service commissions and their fitness for purpose may require re-evaluation,' he said as he ruled on a High Court case involving a longstanding public servant who was adversely affected by bureaucratic delay in the civil service. He noted bodies like the Public Service Commission may be inundated with paperwork and may be constrained by a lack of human and financial resources.
In 2021, the Senate approved a motion by Independent Senator Anthony Vieira calling on the Government to table a clear plan of reform, given the deficiencies within each body.
Yet Mr Vieira did not call for abolition.
'This motion is not about dismantling but about synchronising the gears of the service commissions,' he said.
Dr Rowley's plan, announced during a rowdy speech at a political party event at Toco on Sunday, is unpromisingly extreme. Reform is needed, yes, but suggesting abolition is a provocation too far, good for a rally crowd but little else.
However, even if the general electorate agrees with abolition, the question then becomes: what should commissions be replaced with?
The PM's plan for all of them to be replaced with a single tribunal sounds almost as backward, from a management perspective, as some of the structures in place in the public service right now.
While centralisation is in theory a streamlining procedure, it is hard to see how a concentration or agglomeration of powers into one body will better protect citizens.
What we need is a modernisation of the Teaching Service Commission; a heightening of the independence of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission; as well as constitutional reform of the Police Service Commission's and the Public Service Commission's procedures.
Not needed: giving up on reform for political expediency's sake.
The post Modernise, not abolish appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
