The Standard Cannot Change With the Government

There is nothing wrong with a government providing temporary work to people who need an income. In difficult economic times, a road-cleaning programme can help families put food on the table, pay bills, and prepare children for a new school year. That has never been the real issue.

The issue has always been consistency.

Minister of Transport Nigel Stephenson has announced that this year’s national summer road-cleaning programme begins on 3 August. It is, in most respects, the same kind of seasonal, short-term income-support programme Vincentians have known for years. That is worth remembering, because the New Democratic Party once had a great deal to say about exactly this kind of work.

When the Unity Labour Party was in office, the NDP repeatedly dismissed road-cleaning as proof that the government had failed to create real jobs. In its “NDP View” column published as the 2013 school year approached, the party took direct aim at the ULP’s decision to tie a road-cleaning programme to back-to-school preparation. The programme, the column argued, “did not help in any way.” What parents needed, it said, were the quality jobs the ULP had promised as far back as 2001 and never delivered. What they did not need was seasonal work to tide them over each September.

That was a legitimate political argument. Governments should indeed strive to create permanent, productive jobs that allow families to build a secure future.

Fast forward to 2026.

The same type of temporary road work is now being presented by the NDP government as a valuable employment opportunity. The work itself has not fundamentally changed. It remains seasonal. It remains temporary. It remains short-term income support rather than permanent employment. What has changed is who occupies the government benches.

No political party should be judged by one standard in opposition and another in government. If temporary road work was evidence of economic failure in 2013, why should it be celebrated in 2026? And if it is now recognised as a worthwhile programme that puts much-needed income in people’s pockets, then perhaps it deserved more respect when the previous government administered it. The public is entitled to ask that question.

There is a second issue that deserves equal attention, and it too tests whether a standard survives a change of government. Reports that residents in South Leeward were directed to register for publicly funded road work at a political constituency office have drawn objection. Opposition Leader Dr Ralph Gonsalves has described as inappropriate the decision to have people register for the programme at NDP constituency offices rather than through government outlets.

The objection is a fair one. Public employment programmes should be administered through government ministries and public agencies, not party offices, and public resources must remain separate from partisan machinery regardless of who is in power. But the principle cuts both ways. The complaint is no less valid coming from the ULP today than it would have been coming from the NDP a decade ago, and it is no more exempt from the same test of consistency.

Ultimately, Vincentians are less interested in political slogans than in consistent leadership. They expect governments to create lasting opportunities while providing temporary assistance when circumstances require it. And they expect leaders to apply the same principles whether they sit on the opposition benches or in Cabinet.

A democracy is healthier when parties are held to their own words. Opposition statements are not erased by an election victory; they become part of the standard by which a government is measured.

Road-cleaning programmes may well continue to serve a useful purpose. They provide short-term income, improve communities, and offer relief to families in need. But they should never become a substitute for a real strategy of job creation and economic growth, and they should never be judged by one yardstick in opposition and another in office.

The work has not changed.

The standard should not change either.