Dear Editor,
The framers of our constitution, of which the PNCR was a major player, certainly had in mind the need for a coherent and trouble-free system of governance when it came up with the idea of an executive that could emerge from a plurality and not necessarily from a majority of the popular votes or seats in parliament. The underlying assumption was that there should be independence of the three major arms of the state ‒ the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In the same way that the executive is not expected to interfere in the work of the judiciary, in like manner the judiciary is not expected to get involved in the work of the legislature or vice versa. This does not mean, however, that the advice or guidance cannot be sought of the other if the need for such is felt, as in the case of opposition cuts to budget estimates which the court ruled was unconstitutional.
I am no expert when it comes to matters of the constitution, but I think I know enough to state without fear of contradiction that the executive in any jurisdiction is the body responsible for putting together and executing the country’s work programme as embodied in the national budget. I know of no country in the world where a budget is crafted based on the dictates of the political opposition. Not even in the United States with its advanced constitution is there any provision for opposition inputs.
What is done in the United States in an attempt to control spending beyond statutory limits is to invoke the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act which provided for automatic spending cuts if the deficit exceeds a set of fixed targets. This procedure is known as budget sequestration, which in effect limits the size of the federal budget. Sequestration involves setting a cap on the amount of government spending within broadly-defined categories and if those caps are exceeded an across-the-board spending cut is automatically imposed on these categories by an equal proportion. In actual fact, the amount exceeding the budget is held back by the Treasury and not transferred to agencies specified in the appropriation bills.
This incidentally is a far cry from what the parliamentary opposition is attempting to do in Guyana. To begin with, there is no such thing as far as my knowledge goes, as a Balanced Budget Act or for that matter a Sequestration Act, and hence no provision for automatic budget cuts as in the case of the United States. Budget cuts in 2012 were done without rhyme or reason and were purely arbitrary without any regard to their impact on the national good. From all indications, the combined opposition is once again prepared to use its one seat majority to engage in a repeat performance this year despite a ruling by the Chief Justice that it has no such authority.
It is possible that with the passage of time the need for legislative action to control spending as in the case of the United States may arise. Guyana’s economy however is not in a crisis mode. There is no huge budget deficit as in the case of the United States which is on the verge of what is described as a ‘fiscal cliff.’ On the contrary, the country’s economy has never been as good with strong reserves at the Bank of Guyana. The country at the end of 2012 recorded a surplus of US$12.4 million, due largely to improvements in the country’s capital account.
At the time of writing this column, the opposition-controlled parliament had already secured for itself the right to amend the budget estimates submitted by the Finance Minister, thanks to a ruling of the Speaker of the National Assembly. The government side of the House, despite its disagreement with the ruling, has agreed in the national interest to abide by the Speaker’s ruling. This is indeed a good gesture on the part of the PPP/C administration.
One hopes that the opposition parties in parliament will also heed the advice of Speaker Trotman when he said: “The power to amend must not be exercised capriciously, vengefully, or wantonly and without any rational basis. The pre-eminent duty of the National Assembly is to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of the State of Guyana. In exercising this right to amend, I believe that it will be exercised responsibly and within the spirit of the constitution.”
It remains to be seen how this ruling by the Speaker will play out in the hallowed chambers of the National Assembly. One can only hope that good sense will prevail and the good of the nation will be the sole basis for action.
It is important that as a country we rise above narrow partisan interests and put the interest of the country as the overarching principle that dictates the way we treat with and relate to issues of national importance. Failing to do so could result in a distortion of the national mood and skewed priorities.
Yours faithfully,
Hydar Ally
