Tweet
EDITORIAL - How to set MP salaries
published: Monday | April 9, 2007
MIKE HENRY, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Central Clarendon, wants more pay for his parliamentary service, which he may well deserve. Our concern, however, is not that Mr. Henry, who is a member of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party, is demanding better pay. Rather, we are embar****************ed at the argument he has presented for wanting more.
According to Mr. Henry, he had just spent $300,000 on the funerals of constituents, implying that he had used his own money and presumably does such things often.
Digging into his personal resources to help constituents may be good and philanthropic gestures on his part, but it doesn't square with our notion of political representation. And there is a difference, which, unfortunately, is too often lost on local politicians.
Indeed, what they do is, for the most part, not even philanthropy - benevolent action anchored in a love of humanity and a need to give back. Rather, in the Jamaican political process, these acts of giving are mostly crude handouts aimed at buying or cementing loyalty among the poor.
While Mr. Henry is excepted from this latter group of politicians, the example he raised in the House last week served to further underline the need for an overhaul of prevailing ideas about political representation. Importantly, too, it should help to put back on the agenda the need for a predictable and transparent mechanism for rewarding MPs and the executive branch of Government.
Parliamentary representation, as we perceive and understand it, ought largely to be about advocacy and mobilisation; MPs are expected to articulate the concerns and needs of their constituents to the civil service and political executive to ensure that legitimate demands are embraced and executed in broader policy. At times, the MP may tap and or steer the private sector towards investment in his or her constituency, or galvanise communities to self-help fixes.
However, such concepts have been largely corrupted by the hand-out/'let off' notions of representation, epitomised in such government schemes as the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP), under which there is cash on which MPs can call to finance community-type projects. These are usually accomplished with a flourish as to suggest that these are personal gifts from the parliamentarian rather than being paid for by taxpayers.
Schemes like the SESP, which, unsurprisingly, enjoys strong cross-party support, perpetuate a political clientelism, which parties do not want to rupture. On the substantive matter of parliamentarian salaries, we believe that pay should be based on performance, but that performance should not be determined on whether MPs have been generous in entertaining at bars or have funded funerals. A more rational approach is the one proposed by Oliver Clarke that links salaries to economic growth and a differential between inflation in Jamaica and average inflation in its major trading partners. There would be incentives for parliamentarians to pursue rational economic policies and ensure the proper implementation of such policies. Under the Clarke proposals, MPs would be ensured bonuses for specific things, such as outlining and executing work programmes.
Such a scheme, overseen by the proposed commission, would take the political opportunism out of debates on the hike in salaries for MPs and end the unseemly bickering that occurred when Mr. Henry asked for more last week. The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
published: Monday | April 9, 2007
MIKE HENRY, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Central Clarendon, wants more pay for his parliamentary service, which he may well deserve. Our concern, however, is not that Mr. Henry, who is a member of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party, is demanding better pay. Rather, we are embar****************ed at the argument he has presented for wanting more.
According to Mr. Henry, he had just spent $300,000 on the funerals of constituents, implying that he had used his own money and presumably does such things often.
Digging into his personal resources to help constituents may be good and philanthropic gestures on his part, but it doesn't square with our notion of political representation. And there is a difference, which, unfortunately, is too often lost on local politicians.
Indeed, what they do is, for the most part, not even philanthropy - benevolent action anchored in a love of humanity and a need to give back. Rather, in the Jamaican political process, these acts of giving are mostly crude handouts aimed at buying or cementing loyalty among the poor.
While Mr. Henry is excepted from this latter group of politicians, the example he raised in the House last week served to further underline the need for an overhaul of prevailing ideas about political representation. Importantly, too, it should help to put back on the agenda the need for a predictable and transparent mechanism for rewarding MPs and the executive branch of Government.
Parliamentary representation, as we perceive and understand it, ought largely to be about advocacy and mobilisation; MPs are expected to articulate the concerns and needs of their constituents to the civil service and political executive to ensure that legitimate demands are embraced and executed in broader policy. At times, the MP may tap and or steer the private sector towards investment in his or her constituency, or galvanise communities to self-help fixes.
However, such concepts have been largely corrupted by the hand-out/'let off' notions of representation, epitomised in such government schemes as the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP), under which there is cash on which MPs can call to finance community-type projects. These are usually accomplished with a flourish as to suggest that these are personal gifts from the parliamentarian rather than being paid for by taxpayers.
Schemes like the SESP, which, unsurprisingly, enjoys strong cross-party support, perpetuate a political clientelism, which parties do not want to rupture. On the substantive matter of parliamentarian salaries, we believe that pay should be based on performance, but that performance should not be determined on whether MPs have been generous in entertaining at bars or have funded funerals. A more rational approach is the one proposed by Oliver Clarke that links salaries to economic growth and a differential between inflation in Jamaica and average inflation in its major trading partners. There would be incentives for parliamentarians to pursue rational economic policies and ensure the proper implementation of such policies. Under the Clarke proposals, MPs would be ensured bonuses for specific things, such as outlining and executing work programmes.
Such a scheme, overseen by the proposed commission, would take the political opportunism out of debates on the hike in salaries for MPs and end the unseemly bickering that occurred when Mr. Henry asked for more last week. The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.