Dear Editor
It was intriguing to observe how the post-election drama recently shifted from the prickly SOPs, which turned out to be a storm in a teacup, to the hotly debated tripartite approach to the National Budget without missing a beat. We are so unaccustomed to such open debates in the media on issues, that it does seem and sound strange reading and hearing fellow Guyanese vent and take sides on these issues.
It may be the healthiest sign yet that we are finally emerging as a democracy where people’s opinions matter. But on the debate in the public domain on the proposed tripartite approach to budget, there seems to be a stark division between those in favour of the parliamentary opposition being involved in the preparation of the budget and those who think it should be left solely to the cabinet minister identified by the President to prepare and present.
I have blogged almost ad nausem on this issue, coming down on the side of those who believe the preparation of the Budget is solely the responsibility of the executive branch, with the President identifying a cabinet minister to execute the role. The truth is, I am in complete support of a tripartite approach to the Budget preparation and presentation, but this definitely cannot be done outside of the constitution.
Meaning, a constitutional amendment may be necessary. Title 8 of the constitution, ‘Establishment of Consolidated Fund,‘ Section 218 (1) states, “The Minister responsible for Finance or any other Minister designated by the President shall cause to be prepared and laid before the National Assembly before or within ninety days after the commencement of each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of Guyana for that year.”
Based on that constitutional provision, what fierce advocates of the tripartite approach need to push for is either an agreement from the President to allow his designated minister to sit with members of the parliamentary opposition to prepare the National Budget, or failing that, for the parliamentary opposition to use its slight edge to amend Section 218 (1) to allow Parliament, not the President, to be responsible for designating a tripartite group of parliamentarians to prepare and present the Budget. It is not as easy as it reads, because if the President insists that consultations mean input and not preparation, and the parliamentary opposition disagrees and decides to pass an amendment, that amendment cannot become law until the President assents to it. If he refuses, then the parliamentary opposition will be right back to square one, especially if a two-thirds majority is needed to override a presidential veto.
This is why I am offering my two cents worth of opinion that says, because of the PPP’s failure to rein in the Jagdeo administration as it engaged in wanton excesses with people’s funds and resources, that the current parliamentary configuration has created an opportunity for the three parliamentary parties to work together on the Budget by establishing a Parliamentary Budget Committee.
Whereas the Parliamentary Accounts Committee looks at how monies have been spent or were unspent, the Parliamentary Budget Committee will help allocate monies to be spent. The PBC should be made up of select members of the three parliamentary parties and at least two persons from the Finance Ministry, and since the parliamentary opposition holds the majority, then it will appoint a chairman of the PBC. This arrangement should satisfy the basic criterion needed for the tripartite concept to take shape and become functional with clearly stated terms of reference. And because the Finance Minister, or whoever the President designates to present the Budget, will still have to make the presentation to Parliament, it would make the presentation easier to accept, because the PBC’s stamp of approval would have been placed on it prior to Budget Day. The need for a Budget debate would be greatly minimized, or at least if there are questions, then the forum would be truly enlightening as opposed to the executive branch relying on its traditional parliamentary majority to rubber stamp the Budget in the face of sham debates. Regardless of what formula is adopted, as I am sure others have ideas of their own, I am in full support of the people’s representatives in Parliament having a say in the National Budget before it is presented. Just let it be done without violating the constitution, which may mean passing a constitutional amendment to facilitate this.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
