Dear Editor,
Comments argued for and against more funding for the opposition (PNC/APNU/ AFC) in order to better carry out its responsibility of holding the PPP government to account. The public has not been privy to audited budgets of the Office of the Opposition — balanced, surplus, deficit, we don’t know and as such can’t say whether funding is sufficient. The amount being budgeted to the opposition is in dispute as to whether it is enough to carry out its constitutional duty. How much is enough? Regardless of how much money to given to any government office, there will always be a demand for more. Offices much be budgeted with a fair amount of funds to effectively carry out constitutional duties. Inflation has been running high over the last several years as is the size of government (and concomitantly the size of the opposition). This must be compensated for when comparing opposition budgets over the years. One would expect an increase above and beyond inflationary pressures.
All constitutional and/or institutional offices should be equipped with enough resources to carry out their mandate regardless of which party is in government or in the opposition. Government may or may not change hands; it comes and goes as per elections. Thus, all offices should be respected and adequately equipped and resourced. In Guyana, the PPP did not encounter difficulties in raising funds when in opposition. As observed between 1993 and 2014, and again between 2020 and present, the opposition PNC (APNU) has been struggling to raise funds to campaign for elections and even to hold internal elections as well as to supplement state funding to carry out its official duties.
In my doctoral studies in comparative politics, it has been found that in almost every democratic country, constitutional offices are funded by law. In developed countries as in Europe, North America, and Pacific, politicians rarely complain about budgeting for their offices whether in or out of government. Everyone (MPs and elected parties) gets almost similar funding.
In some developing countries, an adequate amount (in percentage of the budget) is provided to the opposition as well as independent offices such as Ombudsman, Judiciary, Elections Commission, Equal Opportunity Office, etc. In India, for example, the Opposition Leader is given the rank of a Cabinet Minister and given equal resources, including housing, travel, vehicles, personnel, etc. and an entertainment budget, as that of any (Senior) Minister. The state also provides security to the OL and the office of the opposition. The official opposition also gets an office well equipped with a staff and other resources paid for by government resources. In addition, each opposition party represented in parliament in India also gets a government funded office and every Member of Parliament (government and opposition) gets an office and housing plus an entertainment budget and a constituency budget (of millions of American dollars) to address issues in the constituency. Similar to India, in the US where more Guyanese live than in Guyana, every Member of Congress gets equal funding including funds for multiple offices; the leader of each party, ruling and opposition, in each house gets the same amount of funding. All independent offices and agencies get enough funds to carry out responsibilities and when not enough seek more from Congress. The American pattern holds for every developed country. The globe should follow the American pattern.
Whether in Guyana or the Caribbean, every constitutional office should receive relatively fair and adequate funding to effectively carry out its responsibilities.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
