Opinion
- Editorial
Indera
Sagewan-Alli:
We must get the Constitution right
The reading of the 2007 Budget reinforces the urgent
need for Constitution reform that is informed by
the will and needs of the people. We need a Constitution
framed to curtail executive power, and providing
mechanisms for greater accountability.
This Budget, like many before it,
is a hodge-podge of initiatives and programmes,
some good, some bad, some confusing and some contradictory.
By and large, it takes the easy road, throwing money
at socio-economic problems rather than engaging
in the more difficult task of finding sustainable
solutions. It is testimony to what happens when
there are few checks and balances on executive power.
The abrupt ending of the Budget
debate solidifies my view that those who hold the
political offices of governance (on both sides of
the House) have little regard for the people's rights.
We have been robbed of the opportunity to hear whether
there are details to the Prime Minister's passing
comments on inflation reduction, agricultural development,
diversification etc. The opposition benches have
failed us.
Prime Minister Manning boasted of
his Government's "successes". He outlined
economic indicators of growth and stability. The
economy has "doubled" over the past five
years, "unemployment is at the lowest ever
six percent", there are "signs that we
may have already achieved full employment",
we have achieved "financial and economic stability",
made "decisive progress towards an environment
of low inflation", enjoy per capita income
of US$13,978 in 2006, putting T&T "among
the higher income emerging countries of the world".
He fails to mention that all of this was made possible
by windfall international prices of oil and gas
over which the Government had no influence. Getting
the indicators right under these conditions required
little action on the part of this Government. The
quality of life variables are the ones that require
real intervention. What we have are plasters (CEPEP,
URP, smart cards) which will come exploding in our
faces when the situation changes. The current growth
is not trickling down to the benefit of the masses
of people in a sustainable way.
Notwithstanding five years of unprecedented
revenue flows, the almost daily community protests
for basic services like road and water; the current
wave of unionised demands for higher wages in the
face of weakening purchasing power; the escalating
prices of food, housing, and everything else; the
proliferation of gang warfare and the continued
escalation of crime; the people's rejection of environmentally
destructive mega projects like the aluminium smelter;
the daily worsening of traffic congestion, bringing
with it reduced productivity - these are testimony
to the ineffectiveness of the Government's ongoing
Vision 2020 plan.
The Budget reinforces the executive
disregard for the "will of the people"
and a need for accountability. Under the current
system of governance, a government can ignore the
people in its major decision-making without any
repercussions. The people of Chatham have expressed
in numerous ways their rejection of the proposed
aluminium smelter. They are prepared to forgo the
revenues and jobs that the smelter can bring to
preserve their agricultural way of life, their environment,
their health and well being. Yet, the Prime Minister
in his Budget statement is adamant that he knows
better what is right for them.
Ironically, this autocratic behaviour
stands in contradiction to the Government's stated
policy on the environment as articulated by the
PM in his Budget as, "guided by respect for
the community of life" and based on "empowering
communities to care for their own environment".
This dictatorial attitude is similar
to the approach taken in the preparation of the
draft constitution. Rather than consultation of
the people informing the draft, the people are being
asked to respond to a draft that fails to address
the key concerns and flaws of the existing one.
Instead, this draft further entrenches executive
power without accountability.
If after the next election, God forbid, a constitutional
majority is secured by the government of the day,
we will be on our way to having an executive president
freer to do whatever he wants without fear of persecution.
Here comes the $50 million private aircraft! The
Prime Minister has already publicly stated that
with Constitution reform, we may be having two general
elections in quick succession and the only need
for a second would be to institutionalise the executive
president with unlimited powers! People beware,
our democracy is under threat!
There
are so many initiatives proposed in the Budget that
are questionable in their conceptualisation, irrational
in terms of rationale and mixed up in terms of implementation.
Case
in point-the proposed solutions to our transportation
problems. The PM told us about a national transportation
study that the Government has commissioned to "inform
policy" and to "provide a national systematic
decision making tool for investment in the transportation
infrastructure".
The
output is still pending yet the Government will
be awarding contracts for the construction of a
mega billion dollar rapid rail project in December
of 2006. Shouldn't such a massive investment project
be informed by the study instead of preceding it?
(This is reminiscent of the Government's "imposed"
approach to constitutional reform). Is it that the
Government has dictated what the policy should say?
Let
us not forget the PM's test ride of the private
jet from a company involved in the bidding process.
The Minister of Works must take us all for fools
when he suggests that this did not compromise the
process. The company in question should have been
disqualified forthwith! But then there is no mechanism
in the Constitution that forces a government to
respond to such public calls.
In
addition, of great concern is our history of inefficient
public transport systems. Millions have been spent
over the years on luxury buses and the like. Within
months of purchase, our landscape features broken-down
buses left as houses for rodents. Wasn't it only
last year that a new fleet of buses was bought?
Yet we are again hearing of an additional 120 in
the Budget. Where are the provisions for maintenance?
How come even as we buy these buses so many refuse
to use them? What guarantees do we have that this
rapid rail will not go down the same road as other
forms of public transport?
Our
current system of governance allows any government
to ignore constructive, informed public criticisms
of its programmes. Over the last two years, reputable
economists, business persons, construction sector
suppliers of inputs and international agencies including
the IMF have been calling on the Government to slow
down the pace of its capital expenditure programmes,
arguing that high Government demand added to private
sector demand was significantly more than supply
and consequently prices of construction materials
were pushed up by more than 40 percent, further
exacerbating the overall inflation rate.
The
Prime Minister refuses to accept any responsibility,
putting the blame on "high international and
local demand and the escalation in energy cost related
to production and transport". He claims that
the Government has operated in "a very disciplined
and transparent" manner, giving "value
for money".
Any man on the street can tell you the significant
impact of Government expenditure on inflation. Is
the $30 million highway link at Grand Bazaar value
for money? Is the proposed over $800 million sports
stadium at Tarouba value for money? Already the
existing stadiums are underutilised, and in need
of maintenance. The Ato Boldon Stadium is a case
in point.
In
the final analysis, this Government has $38 billion
of our money to spend. In current times, with or
without the benefit of parliamentary debate, there
is nothing that forces accountability before the
fact.
What
is the sense of an outcry after the money is spent
and we have little to show for it? I appreciate
that governments need a certain level of autonomy
in decision-making. Where the sums involved are
small we can survive mistakes. But, when the sums
run in the million- and billion-dollar range there
is need for proper rationalisation before expenditure
takes place. How then do we prevent the stifling
of government while protecting the people's communal
interests?
I
am not clear what the answer is, but I put out for
consideration a system with an enlarged Senate (maybe
Lloyd Best's Macco Senate concept), where the enlargement
allows for widening of the number of independent
voices, and where a budget is passed with a simple
majority in the Lower House, but a special majority
of the Senate's Independent benches. In such a system
there will be a greater requirement for the Government
to provide rationalised expenditure proposals and
work for the votes needed to get the go-ahead to
spend $38 billion on our behalf.
Furthermore, parliamentary subcommittees should
be set up to monitor the progress of Budget expenditure.
This would require that the Government provides
a timetable for implementation with target goals.
Such a committee should have the power to solicit
expert advice, and call on Ministers to account
where actual expenditures are exceeding budget.
The
existing system is filled with opportunities for
inefficiencies and corruption. Change is a must
if the interests of "we the people" are
to be secured. The massive inflows we are currently
enjoying will not last forever and given that our
oil and gas reserves are finite, will never come
again. The imperative for change in governance structure
is now. National leaders must operate within systems
that maximise accountability to the people!
Indera
Sagewan-Alli
is an economist and former MP (i_sagewan@yahoo.com
). Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.
Editor's
Note: The preciding article was a two part article
publish by Trinidad Express, on Friday and Saturday,
Oct 13 and 14, 2006. Petroleumworld reprint this
article in the interest of our readers.
Fair use Notice: This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts
to advance understanding of issues of environmental
and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes
a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All works published by Petroleumworld
are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational
purposes. Petroleumworld has no affiliation whatsoever
with the originator of this article nor is Petroleumworld
endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Petroleumworld
encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast
Petroleumworld articles provided
that any such reproduction identify the original
source, http://www.petroleumworld.com or else and
it is done within the fair use as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must
obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com
are appreciated.
Petroleumworld 10/15/06
Copyright
©2006 Indera Sagewan-Alli. All Rights Reserved.
