THIS WEEK I’M BACK to the seminar I attended on Participatory Governance And Fiscal Policy Dialogue – part of a project responding to the need for a more inclusive approach to public policy determination and the constraints that limit participation in fiscal policy in particular.
In a nutshell, we need to have more say in how politicians spend our tax dollars. Note that this project is being undertaken in only four Caribbean countries, and Barbados is one of them. That’s understandable since we seem to have a government that either doesn’t talk to us or when it does, it talks taxes, taxes and more taxes.
There isn’t enough space to discuss all the issues, but a number of questions were posed e.g What is democracy? Apparently there are 550 types – but two broad ones (1) representative democracy where “the people” vote for representatives who make decisions on their behalf and (2) direct democracy where “the people” make decisions themselves, mainly through referenda (the people’s veto power), initiatives (people’s power to propose and enact legislation), and recalls (the people’s right to remove elected officials and call a new election).
Barbados falls under the “ electoral” or “winner-take-all” category of representative democracy which has some strengths (like enabling stable government to form immediately after an election and a simple voting procedure) but also a number of weaknesses (like the views in parliament not adequately representative of “the people”, a dominance of the executive in parliament, the ruling party influence in parliament being disproportionate to votes and an absence of regulation of political parties).
On the other hand, with the participatory or “shared governance” type of representative democracy, there is more active citizen participation than with traditional representative democracy. That is, citizens aren’t involved only at election time but are directly involved in decision-making during an administration.
Participatory democracy relies on strong independent centres of community decision-making and strong local government with clearly defined rights, responsibilities and revenues, subject to oversight of the legislature. The “voice of the people”, motivated by civic responsibility, must dominate the executive in parliament.
Government manages the economy through taxing and spending (its fiscal policy). This fiscal policy process is perhaps the most important indicator of good governance. Since the fiscal policy is managed through the Budget there are increasing calls for participatory budgeting to ensure good governance. That is, ordinary people should be given real power over their money, enabling them to work with government to make budget decisions that affect their lives.
This concept, apparently started in the late 1980s, is claimed to have been instituted in 1 500 countries in 5 continents. Certainly a far cry from the “like it or lump it” attitude we’re subjected to in Barbados.
The question “who owns Barbados?” was posed. My first reaction was “Trinidad” but didn’t think that was the answer being sought – they were referring to the role of active citizens asserting their right as “owners” of the country and undertaking the related responsibilities of ownership.
I then posited that we were “stewards” of our country rather than ”owners” and that there should be good stewardship. For example, we shouldn’t be allowed to let land remain idle just because we paid for it; we shouldn’t be able to turn good agricultural land into housing just because we paid for it.
This in turn reminded me of the Tim Walsh land issue. I agree with Richard Hoad’s suggestion that government find land for Tim Walsh to continue his operation and investment in our agricultural industry. Wasn’t this suggested for an unproven goat project some time ago? Isn’t it now planned for an unknown quantity i.e Cahill? Why not for Mr Walsh, a proven entity?
Alternatively, to ensure its continued use for agriculture, couldn’t government compulsorily acquire the disputed land as it has done for so much other agricultural land over the years? But, this time, instead of using it for housing, hand it to Mr Walsh (if he in fact still has any energy left after his prolonged battle). Failing this, they could include it in the Land for the Landless Project, in which case Mr Walsh would have to be paid immediately in cash for the greenhouses and other structures at their true value. Government complains it gets criticism but no suggestions. That’s my suggestion.
Dr. Frances Chandler is a former independent senator. Email: [email protected]
