Robert Wynter, Contributor

A recent poll indicated that unemployment, crime and corruption accounted for more than 80 per cent of the problems highlighted by most persons. Poor governance accounted for a measly four per cent.

But what most persons fail to grasp is that unemployment, crime and corruption, and others such as the high debt and garrisons, are all symptoms of deeper problems we face. If these symptoms are simply attacked head-on, it would be analogous to placing a patient with a high fever in an ice bath and expecting instant recovery of the cause of the fever.

Instead, we must attack the root problems, which are poor governance and leadership, little or no strategy, and lack of transparency and accountability. How can members of parliament, indivi-dually and collectively, contribute to solving our problems through improved governance?

There are some 50 or so persons vying for a seat in Parliament for the very first time. Many will be victorious. However, when the euphoria of election victory subsides and the real work begins, to what must we hold these persons accountable?

no consultation

I speak as a constitutional neophyte when I contend that the MP is expected to represent all the persons in his/her constituency in making decisions on national legislative issues to move the country forward. In reality, however, the MP, first and foremost, represents the party in the constituency to secure a victory for the party; and second, he represents the party in Parliament to toe the party line on crucial votes.

In representing the people, it is expected that MPs need to do so in a consultative manner. This is hardly ever done. The usual approach is to consult shortly before the election to ensure victory at the polls; while in the intervening five years, we are literally forgotten.

In fact, MPs believe we should be concerned only about local issues such as poor roads and water shortage. They believe we should leave the important national issues to the party and the intellectual elite on its periphery.

It has always amazed me that on the rare occasion when votes are neither crucial nor contentious, MPs are allowed a conscience vote by their respective party hierarchy. The logical conclusion is that the majority of votes that MPs make which toe the party line are really void of conscience.

Government 101 tells us that there are three arms of government: the legislature (Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament); the executive (Cabinet and the public sector) and the judiciary (justice system). The legislature crafts laws; the judiciary interprets laws and the executive implement laws.

Former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson got into a spot of bother when shortly following Jamaica's qualification to the 1998 World Cup, he broke the law by calling a national holiday. Laws made in Parliament are intended to make Jamaica a better place via social engineering, as stated by Mr Patterson.

MPs are expected to play a very crucial role; however, in reality, they have, over the years, devolved themselves of this responsibility. MPs have left it to the executive to develop laws, which they themselves will implement. With both parties' eyes firmly fixed on the next election, rather than the future of the country, the Opposition will, in the most part, oppose bills (proposed laws) put forth by the executive for the dual purpose in making the executive look unfavourable in the eyes of the voting public, and they themselves seen as defending the interests of the people. Little wonder why this newspaper refers to them as the 'Gangs of Gordon House'.

Shortly after the 1997 election (or it could have been 1993), several rookie parliamentarians lamented that there was no job description for an MP. Think about it: Why would one spend a huge amount of time and personal resources fighting for a job which does not necessarily pay well and for which one does not know the duties or accountabilities? Only when that job is secure does one bother to find out.

Logic suggests that the power and other undefined benefits afforded the position of MP are the real drawing cards. Every five years or so, the contract for all 60 (soon to be 63) officers of Gordon House expires and the employer (us, the citizens) places an advertisement for a new set for five more years. The lengthy interview process, a.k.a. the election campaign, has the aspiring candidates lining up to tell us about their credentials - qualifications, experience, exuberance and promises.

Unfortunately, not much due diligence is done. We spend much more time and analysis shopping for a pair of shoes than deciding who best to lead our government!

It is amazing that someone who has performed so poorly for the past umpteen years promises to be better, and the gullible interviewer/employer accepts the promises gleefully, hires the candidate and, in a short while, complains about his/her lot in life, without consideration for the obvious cause-and-effect relationship.

core functions ignored

Candidate parliamentarians, rather than telling us about how they intend to perform in their core functions (making laws for a better Jamaica), regale us with constituency (and parish) development plans. Included in these plans are better roads and other infrastructure; better employment opportunities; improved education opportunities all specific to the constituency (and parish).

The problem is that MPs have no authority or responsibility for such development and, therefore, cannot be held accountable. Once elected, we never hear about the result of the development plans. In fact, we don't ask about them.

As the beasts of the silly season approach, we must begin the accountability roles that civil society and the media must play if we expect any improvement in national governance. Instead, the media continues to feed the beast. As I read, listen and watch the media, much more emphasis is being placed on the gymnastics and countercharges between the main political parties rather than the issues which confront this nation.
I trust that the media and we, the voters, will make a major shift and demand from the candidates their responses to issues such as the debt, unemployment, crime and the need to cut the public sector.

We cannot accept candidates deferring to spokesmen (on either side) unless they expect us to accept their practice of being rubber stamps for their respective parties in Parliament. We also cannot simply accept promised solutions without asking why these were not done in the past and are not being done now. We must also ask the political aspirants: "Why should we believe things (political will, in particular) will be any different next time around whichever party takes state power?"

continuous accountability

We must continue our accounta-bility roles once the elections are over. Parliamentarians on both sides must hold the executive accountable. The Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP) debacle is a good case in point. Works Minister Mike Henry has been given many chances to right the wrongs that have plagued this project. The Opposition, media, contractor general and now the auditor general, have all raised alarm bells. It is now being referred to as "the mother of all scandals".

The silence by government MPs, combined with the failure of former Prime Minister Golding and current Prime Minister Holness to deal decisively with the issue, smack of poor governance. Maybe Mr Holness can take a page out of Mr Patterson's book, as we can recall the problems which Operation PRIDE created that caused Mr Patterson to remove then Housing Minister Karl Blythe from the Cabinet just before the 2002 election. Sadly, Mr Blythe was given a reprieve and returned to the Cabinet shortly after the election, suggesting that his departure had less to do with good governance and more to do with securing the fourth-term victory.

The strident objection by the Opposition on JDIP is in stark contrast to its acceptance of Operation PRIDE back then. Does Mr Holness have the intestinal fortitude to remove Mr Henry from the Cabinet at this time?

The media and civil society must put pressure on him to do so and make sure that even if he sings his Sankey and lights his candle, he does not find his way back to the Cabinet were the JLP to be victorious at the polls.

Robert Wynter is managing director of Strategic Alignment Limited, which facilitates organisational realignment and leadership development. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com [2] and rob.wyn@hotmail.com [3].