Powers behind the Budget

Robert Buddan, Gleaner Writer

The Boxill-RJR Group polls last week showed that almost 50 per cent of Jamaicans think that Bruce Golding should resign over the Manatt-Coke scandal. Only nine per cent think that his successor should be Audley Shaw, the current minister of finance and the public service. No one seems to think that Mike Henry could or should be the successor. Shaw is well behind the continuing front-runner, Andrew Holness, who is clear of Christopher Tufton by 2:1. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) clearly has a leadership crisis because neither Holness nor Tufton is being contemplated among the power brokers and money sponsors - not yet, at least.

This matter is of special interest. It raises questions about political power. The fact that the issue has been polled suggests that it is not mere rumour that Golding's leadership of the JLP is under great pressure by those in the party. We are entering an election year too, and the party must be more than a little anxious about the face of its leadership. But at present, we also have a Budget to make something of. The Budget needs credible leadership. It needs leaders we can believe and trust. It needs certainty about who will lead the Government and what that Government will look like and stand for.

The Budget cannot be subject to the twists and turns of intrigue within the party, of the rise and fall of the fortunes of different alliances, of the shifting support of major sponsors, and of the political ambitions of those who control projects and funding in Government and are in a position to determine who, that is, which candidates and constituencies get what, like roads, river drainage, and beautification projects for the coming elections. Holness has the popular support of the people, but Shaw and Henry control projects and funds. The prime minister still has great political and administrative power but his credibility is flatlining. It is no accident that Mike Henry was the JLP's third speaker in the Budget Debate. It was not Holness or Tufton. It was Henry's first time as third speaker too.

If one looks at the Government-Planning Institute of Jamaica's (PIOJ) Growth-Inducement Strategy (GIS), for example, one will see that the Ministry of Finance figures in implementing 14 of 33 strategies. Henry's Ministry of Works figures in three, but his ministry is the major provider of the funds under the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP). In the GIS, $14.4 billion is to be spent and the Ministry of Works is the funding and implementing agency covering nearly $9 billion of this. It appears then that the three most powerful government organs going into this fiscal year and next year's election year are the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service, and the Ministry of Works. This is where the (competing) political power behind the Budget lies. But where does the economic power lie?

Economic Power

The GIS was prepared in consultation with eight ministers and a private-sector representative of the Office of the Prime Minister, Christopher Zacca (listed in a group with the ministers). But there were nine other private-sector organisations or private companies outnumbering the ministers, including the largest and most powerful ones under the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ). Many of these organisations are believed to have been or even to still be major financial sponsors of the Jamaica Labour Party's election.

This consultation appears to be a form of private-sector Government. The influence of the private sector over the Government can be safely assumed. However, its own impact on growth seems limited by its lack of will to invest in Jamaica. As usual, it prefers to use public funds for private economic activity. Of 33 tasks and projects identified to be parts of the strategic focus for growth, the private sector is listed as an implementing agency in only four, and these are all in partnership with government agencies. It is a funding agency in just two, the downtown Kingston redevelopment and West Kingston Commercial Lifestyle Centre. Even so, the funding agencies for these projects are loosely listed as 'the private sector', indicating that there is no hard commitment of funds from a specific private-sector source.

There is no indication of the private sector's economic will to play the leading role in economic growth and recovery. It has not committed funds. The largest funds for growth inducement are coming from China and Venezuela which, ironically, are non-capitalist countries. The private sector has not committed itself to buying what it wants privatised, like the sugar companies, Jamalco and the Jamaica Mortgage Bank. The only projects it has made a commitment to are in downtown Kingston where its major companies do business. In other words, the rest of the private sector around the country is left out. The Urban Development Corporation is left to do projects outside downtown Kingston. This does not make sense. Private-sector government is not good for government and not good for the nationwide private sector either.

How Power Works

A most important question to ask about this and all budgets is how power works in our society and political system, because this can tell us much about whether our budgets will work or not. Many of these budgets simply fail, some actually crash. They often do not meet their growth, inflation, employment and fiscal targets. We don't get the improved performance we hope for in education, health, security, and the economic sectors.

Political scientists usually ask, who rules or governs, and in whose interests and for what purposes? Is there a specially privileged class of people who rule; or does power lie with an inner core of bureaucrats, the executive Cabinet, or is it the people, as taxpayers, voters and citizens, who rule? Political reformers seek to shift power from upper classes to elected governments and, ultimately, to the people. They try to find out if the way governments work reflect the rule of the people of or a special class, powerful bureaucrats, or Cabinet. Is it the people's interest that is served, or some other? What is the purpose of power? Is it to achieve equality, growth, class patronage or win elections?

This Budget appears contrived to suit the leadership ambitions of JLP members in Government, the interests of the private sector and the dogma of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It doesn't appear as though the people had much influence in how this Budget was made up or in who it is to serve. Omar Davies said that the minister of finance did not once mention the rise in poverty in Jamaica in his presentation; and that spending on the Jamaica Social Investment Fund was held back to make sure Government met a fiscal target for the IMF. Natalie Neita-Headley pointed to the woeful lack of public-health professionals to say that an unhealthy population cannot be a productive one. Portia Simpson Miller pointed to the ridiculous tax waivers for the rich and reduction of duties on luxury vehicles, while the duties on farm pickups have been increased. The people, as taxpayers, voters and citizens, clearly had little power behind the Budget.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm.