THE EDITOR: TT has experienced several administrative transitions since gaining independence in 1962. While essential to our democracy, these shifts often bear similar characteristics that quietly hinder the public service’s ability to deliver efficiently, regardless of which party is elected.
I have worked within state entities through two such transitions: from the UNC Partnership to PNM in 2015, and now from the PNM to the UNC Coalition of Interests in 2025. In both cases I observed distinct patterns that point to a recurring issue: the period after elections is marked by hesitation, disruption, and silence within the very institutions meant to continue functioning in service of the public.
In 2015, while employed at the now-defunct Government Information Services Ltd (GISL), our board was replaced swiftly following the general election. The agency was seen as politically sensitive, given its media and information functions.
Similarly, this year early attention has been placed on repealing the Revenue Authority Act. These moves reflect a consistent tendency for new administrations to prioritise politically symbolic actions early in their term.
This is not about denying elected officials the right to reshape national direction. Rather, the concern lies in the impact such transitions have on the professionals in the system. Those who serve without political bias often find themselves suspended in uncertainty, unsure if they can proceed with critical work, all while fearing for their job security.
If our hiring practices are truly based on merit, fairness, and transparency, then public officers should be empowered to continue their work, not paralysed by shifting political tides. Unfortunately, uncertainty festers, and the work suffers.
The Caribbean Corporate Governance Institute has recently urged greater continuity and planning in state board transitions, recommending that outgoing directors remain until successors are appointed. Abrupt exits, the institute notes, disrupt institutional memory and service delivery, especially when replacements are not immediately ready.
This issue is not unique to us. Ghana, independent in 1957, continues to face similar governance challenges. Meanwhile, Singapore, independent in 1965, has flourished through consistent administrative alignment. The difference? Stability and clarity.
Governance is by nature bureaucratic. But it need not be burdensome. If we commit to deliberate, tailored transitions rather than blanket resets, we can strengthen institutions, protect professionalism, and serve the people with continuity and confidence.
SHAHAD ALI
via e-mail
The post Void after the vote appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
