Tweet
The government needs a fresh mandate to do what?
CHRIS BURNS
Monday, February 04, 2008
A group of business leaders convened a luncheon, hosted by Observer chairman Gordon "Butch" Stewart, to discuss domestic political and economic issues, and came up with many suggestions on a way forward for this five-month-old Bruce Golding-led government.
One of the fascinating things that came out of those deliberations was a recommendation from Dennis Lalor, a giant in the modern insurance industry and someone for whom I have always had great respect and admiration. However, I am more than a little disappointed with his one-dimensional view on this occasion.
According to newspaper reports, Mr Lalor recommended that "government should ride the wave of goodwill it was (is) receiving from the business community and call an election, with the hope that the results would strengthen its mandate." It is Mr Lalor's opinion, which also attracted the support of Christopher Zacca, president of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, that the government will be hard pressed to carry out its mandate within the context of the narrow parliamentary margin that separates it from the Opposition PNP. However, there are several other issues, outside of a close parliamentary margin that could restrict government's programmes, and we should not pretend otherwise.
The overarching argument that seems to be emerging from some members of the private sector is that the government needs to move post-haste to implement badly needed fiscal measures, if it is to pull the economy forward. Fair enough. But what about others who would be asked to bite the bullet, what will they get and what about their stake in the whole debate?
While accepting the urgency that must influence government's actions and overall economic programmes, one cannot ignore the broader social context in which these policies will have to be developed and implemented. It is for these reasons that I have to agree with the position taken by Butch Stewart that the government should not rush to do everything all at once as this could be both politically unfeasible and socially chaotic. Implicit in his suggestion is the preference for a more manageable approach as is inherent in gradualism. No one can deny the enormity of the challenges that lie ahead, but we should be guided by history as we find solutions to these challenges.
In fairness to Mr Lalor, his recommendation appears to be hinged on the likely outcome of several court cases currently being adjudicated that could reduce the parliamentary margin even further. But we do not know how the court will rule, or how long it will take to hand down judgement; after all, these cases go to the core of our constitutional arrangements. Therefore, we should be careful not to appear to want to coerce the government into using political gymnastics to either diminish the relevance of the courts or derail the judicial process through the use of pre-emptive political actions.
Furthermore, everything government contemplates or does must be geared towards protecting and recognising the interests of "we the people," and by this I mean all the people. One hopes that Mr Zacca and Mr Lalor are not in the least suggesting that with a bigger mandate, the government would have carte blanche to do as it pleases, because this is not how democracies work.
I happen to share a convergence of views with the PSOJ that the cost of maintaining the public sector is unsustainable and that a reduction has to be made to bring it more in line with the state's ability to pay and to do so from revenues, not borrowing. However, I see nothing to prevent the Bruce Golding-led government from starting the process and from signalling, from now, a gradual process of rationalisation and restructuring.
There is nothing standing in the way that prevents the present government from insisting on increased productivity from the public sector. If anything is missing, it is the lack of political will to execute - political will is not a function of huge parliamentary majorities. The PNP, for years, had huge working majorities; yet it lacked political will.
I just do not see how this call for fresh elections makes sense outside of being pre-emptive. No one, including the PSOJ, can guarantee a particular electoral outcome, unless it has plans of its own to influence the electorate and the rest of us know nothing about them.
Furthermore, why should we be saddling up to spend another $1billion-plus on elections simultaneously as we try to contain the deficit? That money could be better spent improving some farm roads, paying down the debt or repairing schools. But even as the private sector is clamouring for a reduction in the size of the public sector, reports have surfaced that the government is paying out millions to consultants. In one case, the Ministry of Finance has over 23 consultants with one of them earning upwards of $900,000 a month.
The post-election climate has been, relatively, very quiet. In fact, so far, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been anything but destructive, subversive or recklessly vociferous. And, thank heavens, there have not been any threats to "oppose, oppose oppose", or promises to "bring down the government" or of "locking it down tighter than a sardine can that not even rain can fall on it".
In the immediate aftermath of the September 3 general elections, Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller was not gracious in defeat and promised to "be the government's worse nightmare and to watch every step it makes and everywhere it goes". Well, that too went by like "Sammy mouth".
It is also ironic that the recommendation was made completely oblivious of the wider context for a renewed thrust towards bipartisanship.
If the private sector is currently experiencing doubts in government policies, those doubts ought to be addressed directly with the policymakers with a view to getting them revamped. The truth is that the government has little wiggle room in which to operate, because the problems that beset us are both systemic and structural.
Burnscg@aol.com
CHRIS BURNS
Monday, February 04, 2008
A group of business leaders convened a luncheon, hosted by Observer chairman Gordon "Butch" Stewart, to discuss domestic political and economic issues, and came up with many suggestions on a way forward for this five-month-old Bruce Golding-led government.
One of the fascinating things that came out of those deliberations was a recommendation from Dennis Lalor, a giant in the modern insurance industry and someone for whom I have always had great respect and admiration. However, I am more than a little disappointed with his one-dimensional view on this occasion.
According to newspaper reports, Mr Lalor recommended that "government should ride the wave of goodwill it was (is) receiving from the business community and call an election, with the hope that the results would strengthen its mandate." It is Mr Lalor's opinion, which also attracted the support of Christopher Zacca, president of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, that the government will be hard pressed to carry out its mandate within the context of the narrow parliamentary margin that separates it from the Opposition PNP. However, there are several other issues, outside of a close parliamentary margin that could restrict government's programmes, and we should not pretend otherwise.
The overarching argument that seems to be emerging from some members of the private sector is that the government needs to move post-haste to implement badly needed fiscal measures, if it is to pull the economy forward. Fair enough. But what about others who would be asked to bite the bullet, what will they get and what about their stake in the whole debate?
While accepting the urgency that must influence government's actions and overall economic programmes, one cannot ignore the broader social context in which these policies will have to be developed and implemented. It is for these reasons that I have to agree with the position taken by Butch Stewart that the government should not rush to do everything all at once as this could be both politically unfeasible and socially chaotic. Implicit in his suggestion is the preference for a more manageable approach as is inherent in gradualism. No one can deny the enormity of the challenges that lie ahead, but we should be guided by history as we find solutions to these challenges.
In fairness to Mr Lalor, his recommendation appears to be hinged on the likely outcome of several court cases currently being adjudicated that could reduce the parliamentary margin even further. But we do not know how the court will rule, or how long it will take to hand down judgement; after all, these cases go to the core of our constitutional arrangements. Therefore, we should be careful not to appear to want to coerce the government into using political gymnastics to either diminish the relevance of the courts or derail the judicial process through the use of pre-emptive political actions.
Furthermore, everything government contemplates or does must be geared towards protecting and recognising the interests of "we the people," and by this I mean all the people. One hopes that Mr Zacca and Mr Lalor are not in the least suggesting that with a bigger mandate, the government would have carte blanche to do as it pleases, because this is not how democracies work.
I happen to share a convergence of views with the PSOJ that the cost of maintaining the public sector is unsustainable and that a reduction has to be made to bring it more in line with the state's ability to pay and to do so from revenues, not borrowing. However, I see nothing to prevent the Bruce Golding-led government from starting the process and from signalling, from now, a gradual process of rationalisation and restructuring.
There is nothing standing in the way that prevents the present government from insisting on increased productivity from the public sector. If anything is missing, it is the lack of political will to execute - political will is not a function of huge parliamentary majorities. The PNP, for years, had huge working majorities; yet it lacked political will.
I just do not see how this call for fresh elections makes sense outside of being pre-emptive. No one, including the PSOJ, can guarantee a particular electoral outcome, unless it has plans of its own to influence the electorate and the rest of us know nothing about them.
Furthermore, why should we be saddling up to spend another $1billion-plus on elections simultaneously as we try to contain the deficit? That money could be better spent improving some farm roads, paying down the debt or repairing schools. But even as the private sector is clamouring for a reduction in the size of the public sector, reports have surfaced that the government is paying out millions to consultants. In one case, the Ministry of Finance has over 23 consultants with one of them earning upwards of $900,000 a month.
The post-election climate has been, relatively, very quiet. In fact, so far, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been anything but destructive, subversive or recklessly vociferous. And, thank heavens, there have not been any threats to "oppose, oppose oppose", or promises to "bring down the government" or of "locking it down tighter than a sardine can that not even rain can fall on it".
In the immediate aftermath of the September 3 general elections, Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller was not gracious in defeat and promised to "be the government's worse nightmare and to watch every step it makes and everywhere it goes". Well, that too went by like "Sammy mouth".
It is also ironic that the recommendation was made completely oblivious of the wider context for a renewed thrust towards bipartisanship.
If the private sector is currently experiencing doubts in government policies, those doubts ought to be addressed directly with the policymakers with a view to getting them revamped. The truth is that the government has little wiggle room in which to operate, because the problems that beset us are both systemic and structural.
Burnscg@aol.com
Comment