D.K. Duncan "ACCOUNTABILITY IS taking responsibility before the fact rather than after the fact - when those who are accountable are right, they take the credit, when they are wrong they (should be prepared) to take the heat".
The Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) has confirmed the 3% first-quarter growth announced and re-announced by Government spokespersons recently. The Ministry of Finance undoubtedly must take credit for this fact although they have not taken responsibility for the circumstances leading up to the gross over-expenditure which resulted in last year's crippling budget deficit. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance did take some heat, this continues to burn the Administration to this day.
The alacrity with which the positive "growth" news has been furnished also raises some questions. Was it possible for the Government to have tracked last year's accelerated budget deficit as it has done recent growth trends? If the answer to this question is yes - then it is logical to assume that the Government deliberately took decisions against the interest of the country at a time when the economy, as we now know, was at its most fragile.
CLARIFYING THE 2002 POLLING TRENDS
All this was happening approximately one year ago - in the midst of the euphoria of the World Youth Games as well as the Emancipation and Independence celebrations. The economy was in the throes of a setback. Prior to this the Minister of Finance stated on more than one occasion that the Budget would not be an election Budget.
At that time public opinion polling figures were experiencing unprecedented reversals of trends. Analysts were unable to come to grips with the fundamental reasons for some of the shifts. A significant part of the answer - we now know - was grounded in the lack of transparency and accountability. If the Jamaican public knew what was going on - it would definitely have made a difference.
NON-FUNCTIONAL COMMITTEES
To compound matters - the Appropriations Committee which had been mandated by Parliament to do specific oversight in February 2001 did not carry out the work that Parliament required of it.
Is that same committee still in place? What are the sanctions when a committee disobeys a Parliamentary mandate?
Would the actions and the results of the Committee have been different if it were chaired by an Opposition member as with the Public Accounts Committee?
Where is the responsibility? Where is the accountability? It should be recalled that this committee was to submit quarterly reports on the implementation of the Budget to the whole House during the year.
This decision was taken following the study of the report of the Moses Committee set up as a direct result of the Gas Riots in 1999. In the absence of National Elections it will be interesting to see when this Committee submits its first report, bearing in mind that the first quarter has come to an end.
The Taxation Committee - which was also set up in February 2001 - still continues to meet. Albeit after the horse had gone through the gate. This Committee should have been in action prior to the budget (before the fact) - and not after the fact as is the case now.
Separately, the Minister of Finance should have briefed the members of the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament - i.e. the entire House - on the budget including the possible quantum of taxation that would be required and the likely sources.
This process should have begun approximately three months before the tabling of the Estimates. Had this been done in 2002, there would have been very little for the Committee to do as there were no tax increases during the election year.
Had this been done this year - 2003 - the extremely untidy management of the General Consumption Tax increases as well as the Cess on imports could have been avoided.
FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
If the Parliament was more than an extension of the Cabinet it might have insisted on the timely implementation of the work of these Committees. It remains very clear that the severing of the umbilical cord that joins the Executive (Cabinet) to the Legislature (Parliament) is a necessary precondition for sustained oversight, transparency and accountability in our Parliament.
A direct result could be that political parties play a more positive role in representation as well as in the monitoring of the Executive. In the context of the PNP President's call for renewal of his party - this approach could be a context within which this is analysed and examined.
EXTRAORDINARY LEADERSHIP
While it is important to change oaths and clarify the meaning of colours in our flag, it is abundantly clear that there is need for fundamental constitutional change. It may be the case that we have to await a change in the leadership of the two traditional parties for fundamental issues to be resolved.
On the other hand could the present leadership who have spanned the entire period of our politics in the post-independence period - leave such a legacy? Lack of Transparency and Accountability comes at a tremendous cost.
We have to continue to believe that something extraordinary is possible!
One Love, One Heart.
A dental surgeon, Dr. D.K. Duncan is a former general secretary and Minister of Government in the PNP administration of the 1970s.
