It is good that this year the Minister of Finance has decided to give the opposition relatively good notice of the tripartite budget consultations. Of course, as Mr. Carl Greenidge, the opposition spokesperson on finance, suggests, the process of those consultations (by which I include the liberal sharing of information) is as important as the discussions themselves and needs to be properly worked out and agreed upon beforehand. Mr. Greenidge also suggested something that I believe to be far more important than the procedures and the discussion themselves, namely that the attitude of the parties involved in the discussions needs to be more accommodative.
Modern governments seek to be inclusive and take on board those policies and suggestions coming from the opposition that coincide with their vision of the future.
Of course, in the political process, those in office must make political judgments as to when to surreptitiously co-opt opposition policies and when to give them credit for such policies. After all, parties have constituencies and even where the government has a majority it must keep in mind the need of the opposition to provide for its own constituency if it wants a rewarding relationship with it.
But when the government is in the minority, as is our present government, unless it is bent upon creating an unworkable political environment, it has no choice but to be prepared to negotiate and accommodate some of the more important opposition proposals.
Being prepared to adopt some minor proposals will simply not help the opposition to portray the kind of image it wishes to its supporters. Good judgment is necessary if the regime is to overcome the contradiction of not wanting to act in a fashion that will give the opposition credit but on the other hand, is in a position which forces it to do so!
Thus, while the task of the opposition is not to write the budget, when it has some power – as it currently has – its supporters will expect it to attempt to rewrite those parts of it that do not fit its projected vision. Of course, the general approach that accepts that the opposition has a right to make these demands and the regime a duty to comply with some of them, cannot be established by the Ministry of Finance. Such an important policy position can only come from the political regime called the PPP/C. If the latter fails to give this kind of leadership, all the consultations in the world will not prevent us from repeating the raucous and generally negative and unproductive outcomes of the two previous budget processes.
However, even assuming that the regime is prepared to accept the need for accommodation, the best outcomes for Guyanese will also depend upon how prepared the opposition is to engage: what alternative approaches it is able to suggest and sell to the government and the country. Furthermore, in my view, the work of the opposition is not solely dependent upon its financial spokespersons. Member of parliaments must have intimate knowledge of their sectors and be in a position to produce alternative visions and suggestions to input into the consultations, the general debate and the public relations processes.
After Amaila, both sides should now realise that a lively public debate that can fundamentally affect policy outcomes can suddenly materialize when important issues are at stake.
Of course, in the absence of adequate information, the engagement will not be productive and possibly degenerate into the usual acrimony. In a democracy, the regime cannot simply expect the opposition to be scrounging around for information. It must adopt a more open information policy and if this proves insufficient be prepared to facilitate other opposition requests in an open or, if necessary, confidential manner.
I considered that one of the best means of acquiring sector information about government processes and activities was to consult the annual reports of the various ministries and agencies. But a few months ago, upon enquiring about the annual report of a certain ministry, I was told by persons in the library of the National Assembly that ministries are no longer required to present annual reports. If this is true and I have no reason so far disbelieve what I was told, this is extremely sad and disconcerting.
How could the government and opposition agree that the ministries, which lay claim to all manner of policies, strategic plans and programmes and are given billions of taxpayers’ dollars by parliament each year, not have to account for their stewardship.
Since the opposition is very much a part of the parliamentary process and of necessity periodically, but particularly at budget times, must make presentations on the work of government ministries, it must have at least acquiesced to this withdrawal.
Annual reports are the stock in trade of public and private management and our parliamentary tradition. UK government departments are required to provide annual reports which include “details of items such as structural reform priorities, implementation of Public Accounts Committee (PAC) recommendations, sustainability reporting, statement of internal controls and a summary of the main changes and challenges in the year.” (“… consultation on simplifying and streamlining the presentation of annual reports and accounts” HM Treasury, June 2013). In the US, each federal agency is required to provide annual reports to Congress, the President, and the American people with “detailed information about progress in meeting the Department’s strategic goals and objectives and key performance measures.”
The annual reports used to be laid in parliament under the signature of the permanent secretary of each ministry, and in my experience many public servants thought they were too cumbersome and repetitive.
Indeed, it was very difficult to get the individual departments to prepare and present them in a timely fashion to the PS. But the remedy was surely not to abolish but to reform the process! As we speak, the UK government is in a process of consultation on the need to simplify and streamline the presentation of all central government annual reports and accounts to facilitate their use by the parliament, think tanks, media agencies, academics, the private sector and the wider accounting community.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
