The Tribune

IN this column on Wednesday, we drew attention to the opposition of four FNM Members of Parliament to the controversial increase of VAT that led to their voting against the Budget. We touched on the reasons why, under our Westminster system of government, they were subsequently sacked from Dr Minnis’s administration. Today, we explore further the workings of that system, which is the bedrock of our democracy, and also call on the Government to improve its public relations.

The Westminster system is a parliamentary form of government which reflects the conventions, practices and precedents of the British Parliament that was once described as the “Mother of Parliaments”. This system was imposed on Caribbean territories that were British colonies and formally became our own form of government at the time of independence in 1973 when we also acquired our own written constitution, unlike Britain itself whose constitution is uncodified.

An important element of the system is that the Prime Minister exercises executive authority through a Cabinet of ministers whom he appoints and who can only stay in office as long as they enjoy his confidence. Ministerial responsibility is a cornerstone of the operation of government insofar as ministers are accountable for their own departments as well as accepting collective responsibility. This means that they must publicly support shared decisions of the government. If they disagree with such decisions or with overall policy, the honourable action is to resign from the government, but they can remain as MPs unless their constituency association loses confidence in them and tries to force them out.

To back up all this, the Manual of Cabinet and Ministry Procedure makes it clear that, in the case of a Parliamentary Secretary who is a member of the Government even though he is not a member of the Cabinet, once a course of action has been agreed and established it is his duty to give that course his full support in public.

Thus, it is unsurprising that those who voted “no” to the annual Budget, which is fundamental to the governance of the country, were required to relinquish their governmental posts for breach of duty, though they will still be MPs.

While the Prime Minister has acted correctly over this, we believe that he and his colleagues are not fully living up to their promises about transparency and consultation. Of course, the precise details of the Budget have to be kept within a tight circle for fear of leaks. But, reportedly, even some Cabinet members were kept in the dark.

More generally, if it is really The People’s Time, it is incumbent on the Government to be seen to be listening to public opinion. It would surely have been wise to explain fully in advance the seriousness of the nation’s indebtedness, seek views about how to deal with it and tell people, in broad terms, what action the government proposed to take. This would have had the appearance of a constructive dialogue but with the Government making it clear that it had been elected to take decisions and that some unpleasant medicine would be required. However, at least the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are now explaining the situation at public gatherings after the event.

The recently published Guide to the People’s Budget is a step in the right direction in keeping the public properly informed. Moreover, Finance Minister Peter Turnquest deserves praise for pushing through the Fiscal Responsibility Bill which he has suggested should help to restore public trust after years of poor fiscal management, ineptitude and lack of transparency by previous governments. He claims that this legislation will force governments to live within their means by putting a cap on public spending and limiting government debt. While this should be widely welcomed, the key will be implementation so it remains to be seen how these objectives will be fulfilled.

We believe that public acceptance of the hike in VAT would be that much greater if the Government were to take immediate specific steps to cut public expenditure; for example, reducing the size of the Civil Service and placing a moratorium on recruitment, decreasing the cost of official travel with smaller delegations for ministerial visits overseas and ensuring that the activities and commitments of state-owned enterprises are urgently reassessed with a view to lowering costs.

One of the criticisms of the Budget was the lack of a strategy for economic growth. While the public is compelled to accept higher taxes and a period of austerity, people may be partially mollified by the knowledge that plans are being developed to stimulate growth.

While it is too late to do anything about unwarranted and excessive spending by past governments – the most recent egregious example of which was the PLP’s reckless and, in many cases, dishonest and corrupt actions that precipitated the current economic mess – a new generation of activists, who are more politically savvy than their parents, is likely to insist on holding future governments to account.

We now need to look over the horizon and hope that the medicine being forced on us will save our country from the fate of Barbados which has had to call for help from the International Monetary Fund. If this medicine is also accompanied by serious measures to reduce public spending and to grow the economy, there is at least the eventual prospect of better times to come.