Tweet
published: Thursday | February 7, 2008
Martin Henry
'In the constitutional scheme of things, an independent and neutral public service implements the decisions and policies of Government.'
Prime Minister Bruce Golding has advised members of parliament that the Government will not be able to honour, this year, the JLP campaign promise of allocating 2.5 per cent of the Budget for development programmes in their constituencies.
But strangely enough, the prime minister could say "emphatically" that "members of parliament and their constituencies will never have had it so good." How come?
The minister of state with responsibilities for the empty Constituency Development Fund, Shahine Robinson, has been instructed to begin sensitisation meetings with MPs. Hopefully, she will get around to discussing with them their roles and responsibilities as members of parliament - if she understands herself those roles and responsibilities.
No questions raised
Ask the average MP, not to mention his or her constituents, what the roles and responsibilities of a member of parliament are and heading up the list is likely to be providing some kind of direct benefit to the 'people'. To the best of my knowledge, not a single member of parliament has raised any question about the standing of the CDF or its predecessor SESP in the constitutional scheme of things.
As one of a very few dissenting voices among citizens and those of the public commentary class, I have consistently pointed out the constitutional danger of the SESP. As far as I can see, the CDF is the SESP with a lot more money promised to it and, therefore, with greater power for greater damage.
A fundamental function of our constitutional arrangement, as for other democratic constitutions is the balance of power with appropriate checks and balances to try and avoid the abuse of invested power which will hurt the rights and freedoms of citizens.
In the constitutional scheme of things, an independent and neutral public service implements the decisions and policies of Government. The Constitution assigns a simple and clear role to Parliament and its members. Under Powers and Procedure of Parliament (Chapter V, Part 2, Section 48(i)) the Constitution states, "subject to the provisions of this constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica".
Implications
A critical subtext of the ongoing battle over the Public Service Commis-sion, an agency of the Constitution, and its behaviour is the freedom of the public service from interference in the executive of its constitutional functions.
Giving to legislators discretionary spending power over portions of the revenues of the State is bound to have implications for interference with the Public Service not to mention implications for the tribalisation of the distribution of scarce benefits, and for corruption. The prime minister came to be head of Government on a pledge to root out corruption. His commitment to the CDF trends in the opposite direction.
An MP, armed with state revenue resources has only two options for pursuing development in his/her constituency: to dictate to public service agencies in the discharge of their duties, or to create a delivery system. In either case, the strong temptation to reward his/her people will become a reality on the ground in many instances. In essence, the money will be used to 'buy votes'.
So how is a member of parliament to help his/her constituents? What the constitution envisaged, but is now badly hobbled in practice, is that MPs would be able to propose laws and policy directions good for Jamaica and benefit their piece of Jamaica.
Power to influence
For example, the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament, for very good reason, is the entire membership of the House of Representatives. The Constitution intends that MPs have power to influence the Budget and the directives to state agencies. This is too little the case. And the preferred solution is to give them portions of state revenue over which they can exercise personal discretionary spending power to the corruption of the constitution. And almost everyone is happy with the arrangement.
MPs can have it good, and better, if in the discharge of their primary roles and responsibilities they are allowed to help shape laws, policies and budgets from the floor of the Parliament "for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica". And if public service agencies are left to carry out clear policy directives.
Martin Henry is a communication specialist.
Martin Henry
'In the constitutional scheme of things, an independent and neutral public service implements the decisions and policies of Government.'
Prime Minister Bruce Golding has advised members of parliament that the Government will not be able to honour, this year, the JLP campaign promise of allocating 2.5 per cent of the Budget for development programmes in their constituencies.
But strangely enough, the prime minister could say "emphatically" that "members of parliament and their constituencies will never have had it so good." How come?
The minister of state with responsibilities for the empty Constituency Development Fund, Shahine Robinson, has been instructed to begin sensitisation meetings with MPs. Hopefully, she will get around to discussing with them their roles and responsibilities as members of parliament - if she understands herself those roles and responsibilities.
No questions raised
Ask the average MP, not to mention his or her constituents, what the roles and responsibilities of a member of parliament are and heading up the list is likely to be providing some kind of direct benefit to the 'people'. To the best of my knowledge, not a single member of parliament has raised any question about the standing of the CDF or its predecessor SESP in the constitutional scheme of things.
As one of a very few dissenting voices among citizens and those of the public commentary class, I have consistently pointed out the constitutional danger of the SESP. As far as I can see, the CDF is the SESP with a lot more money promised to it and, therefore, with greater power for greater damage.
A fundamental function of our constitutional arrangement, as for other democratic constitutions is the balance of power with appropriate checks and balances to try and avoid the abuse of invested power which will hurt the rights and freedoms of citizens.
In the constitutional scheme of things, an independent and neutral public service implements the decisions and policies of Government. The Constitution assigns a simple and clear role to Parliament and its members. Under Powers and Procedure of Parliament (Chapter V, Part 2, Section 48(i)) the Constitution states, "subject to the provisions of this constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica".
Implications
A critical subtext of the ongoing battle over the Public Service Commis-sion, an agency of the Constitution, and its behaviour is the freedom of the public service from interference in the executive of its constitutional functions.
Giving to legislators discretionary spending power over portions of the revenues of the State is bound to have implications for interference with the Public Service not to mention implications for the tribalisation of the distribution of scarce benefits, and for corruption. The prime minister came to be head of Government on a pledge to root out corruption. His commitment to the CDF trends in the opposite direction.
An MP, armed with state revenue resources has only two options for pursuing development in his/her constituency: to dictate to public service agencies in the discharge of their duties, or to create a delivery system. In either case, the strong temptation to reward his/her people will become a reality on the ground in many instances. In essence, the money will be used to 'buy votes'.
So how is a member of parliament to help his/her constituents? What the constitution envisaged, but is now badly hobbled in practice, is that MPs would be able to propose laws and policy directions good for Jamaica and benefit their piece of Jamaica.
Power to influence
For example, the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament, for very good reason, is the entire membership of the House of Representatives. The Constitution intends that MPs have power to influence the Budget and the directives to state agencies. This is too little the case. And the preferred solution is to give them portions of state revenue over which they can exercise personal discretionary spending power to the corruption of the constitution. And almost everyone is happy with the arrangement.
MPs can have it good, and better, if in the discharge of their primary roles and responsibilities they are allowed to help shape laws, policies and budgets from the floor of the Parliament "for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica". And if public service agencies are left to carry out clear policy directives.
Martin Henry is a communication specialist.