Budget debate needs more focus, less politics
Editorial
For five days following the presentation of the 2000 budget, MPs on both sides of the House rose to their feet to have their say in what has traditionally been described as the budget debate. That label would puzzle many a watcher in the spectator's gallery, listener on the radio or television viewer who would have expected careful dissection of the fiscal outlays, policies outlined (or lack thereof) and suggestions for improvements. While some speakers tried their utmost to stick to the task and address the strengths and weaknesses of the budget, in the main the presentations were besotted with one-sided retreats into history honed on the anvils of the main parties. What it lacked in good natured cut and thrust it made up with harsh rhetoric, divisive arguments and coarse heckling. It was not helpful at all if the main objective behind these overly long presentations was to focus attention on the budget and make constructive inputs on the speech by Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for finance, Saisnarine Kowlessar. Neither was it conducive to reaching across the political divide in a year when the nervous energy over the approaching elections is already beginning to surface and battle lines are being drawn. This is what is so unhealthy and uncompromising about the political culture in this country. Both the PPP/Civic and the PNC are finely attuned to the enormous danger that this ceaseless regurgitation of history selectively and staking out entrenched positions poses. Yet both parties amble along this road - interested in notching up as many debating points as possible - without genuine attempts at pushing reconciliation themes and confidence building. At times, the parliamentary sessions seemed more like school type debates among earnest children fixated on the goal of winning and never contemplating losing. Budget debates of this type are standard fare in Westminster-type democracies particularly in the Caribbean but Guyana is a special case and the two main parties must comprehensively understand that the populace is being slowly poisoned by this combative fare of invective and disrespect for each other that is evident not only in Parliament but at every other public forum where they tangle. Respect and good natured disputation are signs of refinement in political life. It is difficult to predict what type of condition the country will find itself in for the next budget presentation. It is conceivable that the traditional dates in 2001 may become entwined with the elections timetable and all that that threatens. Whenever the next budget is presented and no matter by whom, MPs in the highest law-making forum of the land owe a special responsibility to their constituents - beyond their obligations to their parties - to strike a blow in favour of unity and harmony and to make a determined effort to grapple seriously with the budget and its contents. It may be a bit too much for a system that thrives on political rivalry but can we honestly say that the uneasy climate in the country has been lightened and the people edified by the debate on the budget this year? The budget presentations need drastic reshaping with strict time limits and no opportunities for extensions unless some profound argument is about to be uncoiled or the benches are enraptured by a presenter's refreshing approach. In terms of content the speeches must be relevant to the budget or to the various ministries or areas to which the speakers have been assigned responsibility. Moreover, MPs should use this one occasion when they are in the public eye to help in confidence building between the political camps in the country and not demonise or belittle each other. This would certainly elevate the debate and the role of the parliamentarian and help in some way to reduce the ever present societal tensions.
|