I knew almost instantly when the issues first surfaced what I wanted to write about this week. However, I also knew that once it was publishedI would once again be politically labelled.
My party colours apparently change fluidly every other week depending on the nature of my articles. This is not problematic for me in so much as I have promised myself that until the day that I decide to politically align myself with either party, my mouth belongs to me and no one else.
I noted with interest that Prime Minister Freundel Stuart was reported in the Press as saying that politicians should be getting more money to better look after the interests of their constituents.
I was instantly intrigued. I figured $2 500 is a fair amount if you are just paying rent and utilities for office space, so how will they account for how they use the increase in funds? Who will decide what exactlyit should be used for? What kinds of interests are considered legitimate interests that they shouldbe paid from the public purse to a politicianto service a constituency that should already behaving its needs serviced by the central Government?
As far as I know the Constituency Councils were also set up by this Government to take care of the needs and interests of constituents. There is alsoa whole Department of Constituency Empowerment. Lest we are not clear, this is also funded by thepublic purse.
The job of this department, as I understand it, is to increase the efficiency in the service delivery to citizens by creating linkages to other Government agencies that offer important “care” services to citizens.
So I am a bit confused and unsure about the reported suggestion by the PM. My understanding is that politicians at the constituency level should work to channel the issues and concerns of their constituents into various Government agencies and as well to central Government to influence policy-makingso I am not clear what the increased funds areto be used for exactly.
What I can say is this: with all of the councils, departments and already existing Government agencies that have been set up to take care of the interests and needs of citizens, when we add more money to the pot for politicians to also take care of these interests, we should have citizens who receive the best care in the world.
This approach suggests that giving money directly to politicians for their constituency will perhapshelp fix the problems of poverty, lack and unemployment. I assume these are the interests that are being referred to. It will not! We ought to be careful that the political purse at the state level does not reinforce a level of dependency that is both unsustainable and undesirable.
In my humble opinion, Mr Prime Minister, if thereis extra money in the purse, do not give it to your politicians. Help fix the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the polyclinics; use some to fix the police stations and the courts; enhance the welfare system so that it actually works for poor people, and provide more scholarships for University of the West Indies students so that some of those children from the constituencies can get higher education and one day aspire to be Prime Minister.
In the same week this story was reported in the Press we also had the article about those men who raised the issue of vote-buying and actually placed proposals on the table on how to address it.
What these two issues brought home to me is how much we need some rigorous debate about the state of the political process, how we make decisions and the level of transparency and accountability or the lack thereof.
I tip my hat to the trio, not because I think thatany of their proposals will have much traction or be successfully implemented by either party, but becauseI am just happy that they were brave enough to raise the issue. Of course, the typical reactions are already in play.
On one side, there is complete silence;on the other, we have, ‘Let’s not talk about it lest it hurts our reputation’ and, of course, the even more typical reaction of denial – it does not happen and bring the evidence.
But not only will the matter not go away, it has the ability to fester and grow until it eats away at the most sacred part of our democracy.
What is needed is honest debate and a desire for change. I am unsure if, as a society, we have the intestinal fortitude for either.
• Shantal Munro-Knight is a developmentspecialist and executive coordinatorat the Caribbean Policy Development Centre.Email shantalmunro@gmail.com.
