THE JUST CONCLUDED debate on the Estimates in the House of Assembly was an important but disappointing exercise. Given the critical economic pass at which this country is now positioned, one could be forgiven for expecting a clear blueprint for the immediate and medium-term future good of the country from Government. This was not to be, and some aspects of the debate seemed to be scraping the bottom of an empty barrel.
The most impressive contribution came from the former Prime Minister Owen Arthur, who now sits as an Independent member. His speech was a master class in which he exhibited his clear understanding of managing the economy of small open countries and his words must be required reading for a Government which finds itself wading in treacherous waves of turbulent economic waters.
At the very least, his suggestions bore the imprint of experience, and we are not surprised that members of the Opposition sought unsuccessfully to have his time extended, but he promised to say more in the Budget debate. We feel that the House should consider extending such courtesies when it deems it appropriate.
In the run-up to a general election, due within another 15 months, political realities meant that the Opposition Leader was not likely to be as bold and to disclose further details of any proposals for grappling with the economic situation, but to be fair to her she had previously spoken of the troublesome position of the economy, and events since the last election show that she has been thinking about the issues and highlighting the challenges.
As long ago as 2013 she suggested that the Government should make use of the views of an eminent persons group. That suggestion was rudely dismissed by the Government then, although the debate itself suggested that extramural advice and opinions might now be considered by Government.
Her addresses to the Chamber of Commerce and the no-confidence motion filed and debated last year drew specific attention to the deteriorating economy, but Government closed ranks and its 2016 Budget was not enough to stem the slide in foreign reserves and the passage of time has not yet brought desired relief.
Neither, to be quite frank, did the speech of the Honourable Prime Minister. He repeated his earlier statement that there would be no panicky resort to the IMF, and sought to reassure the country that if a stage was reached similar to those which faced Tom Adams and Erskine Sandiford, his government would do what was good for the country – but that, as he said, is not an agenda item now.
Even if we ignore the views of the rating agencies, it is unwise to throw under the bus the views of former technocrats in the diaspora, whose intimate knowledge and past hands-on experience of the inner workings of the local economy is widely respected.
The professional consensus does not call for a panicky resort to the IMF. Rather the situation demands a considered response to the serious challenges facing the country and its people. The views of Mr Arthur are fortified by equally solid views.
The people elected the Government and not the experts to run this country, and so the decisions must be made by the Government. But this Government must recognise that timely action is not panicky.
