READERS FAMILIAR WITH THIS column would know that I do not often, if ever, praise politicians for the performance of the public duties for which they deliberately offered themselves on seeking election to Parliament.
But I feel constrained on this occasion to break that self-imposed rule by Mia Mottley’s performance – and performance it was – in the reply to the 2012 Budget last Wednesday that to my mind was a tour de force.
It showed very clearly evidence of early preparation and a high comfort level with a subject outside of her professional training that came through with a lawyerly marshalling of facts and figures, and their presentation to an expectant and attentive national jury via television. Impressive!
Less so, I thought, was the presentation of the Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler, who started well, as expected, within his political comfort zone, but appeared to falter when time came to deal with the numbers – obviously not his forte.
And then, what are we to make of his use of a recent Corey Worrell column, essentially, a paean to his triumph over hard times, as his peroration?
With all due respect to a budding fellow columnist, it was still mystifying that Sinckler would use, not excerpts, but the entire column (in a form of parliamentary sleight of hand) to wind up his speech on a low note rather than the high plateau on which he began. And that to me was the major difference between the two presentations – structure.
Mottley used her forensic skills with what I like to call the Johnny Cheltenham Method, and posed her areas of concern upfront and then returned to systematically explore them.
While many suffering Barbadians were at least half-hoping for some tax ease and relief from crippling prices, especially with an election in the offing, it was clear that the Government does not have the wherewithal to share out such “goodies”.
Which is why I thought that the heavy focus on greening the economy, while a positive long-term initiative, was not much more than a diversion from the clamouring bread and butter issues.
Positive impression
Placed at the heart of the Government’s energy policy, it certainly did not have the same resonance with householders trying to cope with high electricity bills and fuel prices as did Mottley’s clinical dismantling of the Barbados National Oil Company’s (BNOC) highly profitable operations and its contribution to their difficulties.
Maybe the partial (30 per cent) divestment of this company, after a careful and thorough evaluation of its true worth, could turn out to be a masterstroke by this Government.
Overall, the eagerly anticipated Budget Debate itself was without any major political drama, but it has left a very positive impression on the minds of Barbadians with respect to the competence of the former Opposition Leader who has re-emerged as the front-runner for the future leadership of this country.
In a way, the move by Owen Arthur to elevate her to deliver both the Estimates and the Budget replies has paid dividends: not only in suggesting a healing within the Barbados Labour Party (BLP), but in highlighting as well the party’s depth.
The politics of the Budget may be assessed from the perspective of its timing, intent and impact.
It has now been confirmed by Prime Minister Freundel Stuart that it was the last Budget before the next general election. Thus, it was somewhat surprising that the environment was set for Barbadians not to expect major giveaways. Some may want to interpret this as a sign of a reasonable Government; others, who are more suspicious and wary of the politician, may ask: why?
As I have stated before, no politician acts against his self-interest unless he is forced to do so. In the circumstances, having locked itself into a homegrown fiscal strategy for the last two years, it would have been difficult for the Government to go against its own programme of adjustment.
Coinsides with election year
Indeed, the fiscal adjustment programme had already identified that the Government would not cut expenditure for obvious reasons during this fiscal year 2012/2013, which coincides with election year.
Given the timing of the election and the promise not to cut expenditure, the Government was still able to give some tax relief. Yet, it cut expenditure to offset that relief. In a political context, and given the timing, this was unusual and suggests an imposition from outside the will of the politician.
Unfortunately for the Government, it was discovered since the Estimates Debate in March that a policy-based loan agreement was negotiated with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) that established parameters for a fiscal consolidation programme. In it, the Government committed to keeping the VAT rate at 17.5 per cent, the taxes on allowances and the hike in the excise tax.
In the circumstances, the timing of the Budget made a difference with respect to the capacity of the Government to deliver a political punch by giving tax relief only and the magnitude of the relief. The intent of the Budget was still to offer some relief, but the politicians’ hands were evidently tied.
This may explain why the focus of the Budget was transformational, that is, policy initiatives with an impact down the road and not necessarily immediate.
The build-up and intent of the Budget presentation would have been unusual for a political party that has not delivered on its major campaign promises, especially with respect to the cost of living. But this administration has presided over higher unemployment, more debt and a smaller economy, which would not have been goals.
Typically, politicians are inclined to try a little something, especially when the odds are stacked against them. In recent times, these odds were quantified in a CADRES poll that revealed two, not one, Opposition members as being the preferred leaders.
This kind of news would have encouraged any political party to want to deliver an impactful Budget.
In this regard, Sinckler is said to have delivered the longest Budget Speech in recent memory but was still unable to reverse the negative impact of his previous taxation policies. Further, he could not have anticipated that the Opposition’s first responder would have been so well prepared to match not only his content but stamina.
What the Budget has done more than anything else is to put tremendous weight of the quality of the parties’ manifestos in the upcoming general election campaign. This is because moreso than ever, the country is looking for a way out of the present economic morass that is workable and sustainable.
In the absence of the political skills of the late Prime Minister David Thompson, the raw politics, though never avoidable, would not carry the same weight in the imminent political campaign. There is a sense in which even the recent Budget Debate moved away from the character of the recent past.
Perhaps the decision by Arthur to let Mottley deliver the Budget Reply might have had an unintended effect that will be also evident in the weeks or months ahead.
Whatever perspective is used, one of timing, intent or impact, the Budget seemed compromised by local and external non-political forces, which tend to focus more on sums than strategy.
In that sense, the debate offered a glimpse into a political fight that may be won more by strategic thinking and intervention than by availability and allocation of scarce money.
• Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email [email protected]
