IN MANY respects the recently concluded Budget debate appeared more sophisticated and statesman-like than some in previous years. True, there was the usual desk-thumping and the jiving across the floor but this year's debate had a number of distinguishing features.
For one thing, save for Opposition Spokesman on Finance, Audley Shaw, the speeches were shorter and tended to focus on addressing the critical issues rather than the traditional unnecessary embellishment of points that use to prevail. In this context Finance Minister Davies' initial tone of brevity was maintained. Of course, in the case of Mr. Shaw's presentation which was somewhat lengthy, it can be argued that this was a strategic decision, aimed at fleshing out what he regarded as vital issues omitted by Dr. Davies in his opening.
A second notable point is that the Opposition demonstrated a clear strategy of putting alternative policy options on the table rather than those articulated by Government. Specifically, Mr. Shaw outlined his alternative financing strategy that he argued could raise another $7 billion. And, he detailed an alternative spending strategy that he believed was more consistent with existing economic realities.
For his part, Opposition Leader Seaga, never one to shy from ruffling feathers, questioned Jamaica's readiness to participate in the upcoming Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). He later dropped 'a bombshell', given the reigning ethos of free market economics, when he recommended the introduction of a fixed exchange rate to facilitate macroeconomic stability.
A third incontestable point about this year's debate is that the Opposition, having put specific suggestions on the table, served to generate more public interest, anticipating how both the PM and Dr. Davies would respond to the Opposition's recommendations.
Allied to the issues put on the table was increased use of empirical data in the presentations. This was best demonstrated by the Opposition Leader's at times very academic presentation. While some of the technical points could prove confusing to some members of the public, the use of data helped to focus the budget issues. This is a definite progressive development that should be encouraged as it would facilitate more discussion on the assumptions that inform policy decisions
Now that the debate is behind us, the real work begins. The public must remain alert to ensure that announced projects are implemented and that targets are respected. In this regard the mettle of the MoU's Monitoring Committee will definitely be tested. This is a difficult, but not daunting task.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
